;-NRLF 


SB    EM 


ETRIC 

>O> 


DALE 


D.VAN  NOSTRAND  COMPANY 


A& 


LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA, 


Gl  FT    OF 


Class 


:«r^fc*<r4x^u-j 


"It  is  a  tormenting  of  the  people  for  mere  trifles." 

NAPOLEON. 

"Compare  the  uniformity  that  you  must  lose  with  the 
iniformity  that  you  may  gain." 

"  The  substitution  of  an  entire  new  system  of  weights  and 
measures  instead  of  one  long  established  and  in  general  use, 
is  one  of  the  most  arduous  exercises  of  legislative  authority. 
There  is,  indeed,  no  difficulty  in  enacting  and  promulgating 
the  law,  but  the  difficulties  of  carrying  it  into  execution  are 
always  great  and  have  often  proved  insuperable." 

"  The  legislator  *  *  *  finishes  by  increasing  the  diver- 
sities which  it  was  his  intention  to  abolish,  and  by  loading 
his  statute  books  only  with  the  impotence  of  authority  and 

the  uniformity  of  confusion." 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 


THE  METRIC   FALLACY 


BY 

FREDERICK   A.    HALSEY 


AND 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE 

IN   THE  TEXTILE  INDUSTRY 


BY 

SAMUEL   S.    DALE 


NEW  YORK 

D.   VAN  NOSTRAND   COMPANY 

23  MURRAY  AND  27  WARREN  STS. 

1904 


V 


COPYRIGHT,  1904, 

BY 
D.  VAN  NOSTRAND  COMPANY. 


143 


PKEFACE. 

This  book  is  an  outgrowth  of  a  paper  presented  to  the  American 
Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers  at  its  December,  1902,  meeting 
and  the  discussion  which  followed,  and  by  permission  of  the 
Council  of  that  Society  much  of  the  paper  is  here  included.  The 
points  raised  in  the  discussion  have  been  rewritten  and  placed 
in  their  appropriate  places.  The  list  of  countries  in  which  it  was 
shown  in  the  paper  that  old  units  continue  in  use  has  been  about 
quadrupled,  while  new  chapters  have  been  added  on  The  Reasons 
for  the  Failure  of  Compulsory  Laws,  Scientific  and  Industrial 
Measurements,  Scientific  and  Industrial  Difficulties,  "  The  Govern- 
ment Will  Pay  the  Cost,"  The  "  Confusion  "  of  our  Weights  and 
Measures,  The  Complications  Due  to  a  Mixture  of  Units,  The 
Inaccuracy  of  the  Meter,  The  Abandoned  Portions  of  the  Metric 
System  and  The  Object  of  the  Bill. 

Part  II.  on  The  Metric  Failure  in  the  Textile  Industry  has 
also  been  entirely  rewritten  and  is  believed  to  be  the  first  critical 
anti-metric  analysis  of  the  system  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
textile  industry  that  has  been  made. 

The  table  of  Continental  systems  of  numbering  spun  yarn 
has  been  compiled  from  the  latest  French,  German  and  Spanish 
authorities  and  submitted  to  several  practical  French  and  Ger- 
man textile  manufacturers  and  merchants  for  examination  and 
criticism.  One  of  them,  a  large  dealer  in  yarns  and  the  pro- 
prietor of  a  German  conditioning  house,  returned  the  list  with  a 
suggestion  which  has  been  adopted,  as  to  the  method  of  express- 
ing the  equivalents  of  each  system,  and  added  this  remark :  "  The 
work  is  very  useful  and  instructive." 

This  table  is  believed  to  be  the  most  complete  of  its  kind  ever 
published.  Care  has  been  taken  to  eliminate  all  systems  not  in 
actual  use.  The  list  will  therefore  be  useful  not  only  in  showing 
the  Continental  chaos  of  textile  weights  and  measures,  but  also 
in  aiding  the  unfortunate  Continental  manufacturers  in  finding 
the  reciprocal  equivalents  of  the  multifarious  systems  of  yarn 
counts  with  which  they  are  now  tormented. 

Should  the  reader  be  surprised  at  the  facts  regarding  the  lim- 


163860 


4  PREFACE. 

ited  use  of  the  metric  system  herein  given,  he  should  remember 
that  no  proof  of  anything  to  the  contrary  has  ever  been  offered. 
Whenever  the  metric  advocates  have  learned  that  a  government 
has  passed  a  law  favorable  to  the  system,  they  have  straightway 
conveniently  assumed  that  it  has  become  the  common  system  in 
trade  and  commerce.  They  have  not  inquired  into  the  working 
of  these  laws  nor  into  their  scope  or  nature.  Their  logic  has 
been,  "  Such  a  country  has  passed  a  metric  system  law,  therefore 
the  people  of  the  country  have  dropped  their  old  units  and  taken 
up  the  new."  Their  stories  of  the  imposing  number  of  hundreds 
of  millions  of  people  who  use  the  system  have  no  other  basis  than 
this.  They  have  simply  added  the  figures  for  the  population  of 
those  countries  which  have  passed  some  kind  of  a  metric  law, 
including  those  in  which  the  laws  are  simply  permissive,  and 
those  in  which  the  system  has  been  adopted  for  government  pur- 
poses alone.  If  the  facts  which  are  given  in  these  pages  turn 
their  case  to  ridicule,  they  have  nothing  to  thank  but  their  own 
credulous  willingness  to  believe  anything  favorable  to  their 
system  and  to  their  free  use  of  their  own  imagination  without 
regard  to  facts. 

The  assertions  of  the  wide  use  of  the  system  have  been  repeated 
so  many  times  that  they  have  come  to  be  generally  believed,  but 
the  mere  repetition  of  an  untruth  does  not  make  it  a  truth.  The 
reader  should,  therefore,  reverse  his  attitude  of  mind  at  the  start 
and  regard  the  extensive  use  of  the  system  not  as  a  fact  but  as 
an  unproven  assumption.  Kemembering  that  assertions  have  no 
weight  as  against  facts,  he  will  then  be  in  a  position  to  form  a 
just  estimate  of  this  the  only  considerable  collection  of  facts 
relating  to  the  use  of  the  system  that  has  ever  been  published. 

The  reader  will  not  fail  to  note  the  numerous  countries  in 
which  the  system  has  been  adopted  for  government  purposes  for 
many  years,  but  in  which  government  use  has  failed  to  bring 
about  the  general  adoption  of  the  system  in  trade  and  commerce. 
As  this  is  precisely  the  programme  which  is  relied  upon  to  bring 
about  the  general  adoption  of  the  system  by  the  American  people, 
the  experience  of  these  countries  is  of  immediate  and  obvious 
application. 

The  chapter  on  Reasons  for  the  Failure  of  Compulsory  Laws 
has  equal  application  to  the  conditions  of  the  British  Empire, 
•where  the  metric  programme  is  based  upon  avowed  compulsion. 
It  is  shown  in  this  chapter  that  general  compulsory  laws  have  no 


PREFACE. 


jurisdiction  over  factory  measurements,  and  that  the  only  effect 
of  such  laws  will  be  to  plaster  a  set  of  commercial  metric  units 
over  a  set  of  factory  English  units,  leading  to  nothing  but  what 
John  Quincy  Adams  so  aptly  calls  "  the  uniformity  of  confusion." 
The  authors  will  be  glad  to  receive  additional  information 
from  any  part  of  the  world  for  incorporation  in  future  editions. 
They  may  be  addressed  in  care  of  the  publisher. 


ERKATA. 

Page  146,  8th  line,  decigramme  to  decimetre. 

"  146,  8th  line,  centigramme  to  centimetre. 

"  195,  6th  line,  kilogramme  to  453.59  grammes. 

*'  195,  8th  line,  "          "         "     "   " 

"  195,  10th  line, 

"  203,  5th  line  from  bottom,  grammes  to  grains. 

'•  203,  5th  line  from  bottom,  centimetres  to  inches. 

"  210,  17th  line,  8.95  to  8.92±. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 


THE   METRIC   FALLACt 

Introduction 11 

The  Pro-Metric  Argument 13 

The  Anti-Metric  Argument 16 

Errors  of  and  Misrepresentations  by  the  Metric  Advocates     ...  18 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  German  Textile  Industries  ...  24 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  French  Textile  Industries    ...  28 

The  General  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  France     .....  33 

The  Persistence   of  Old  Units  in  German  Mechanical  Industries    .         .  39 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units   in  Scandinavia 45 

The  Persistence  of  Old   Units  in  Greece    .......  46 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  Turkey 47 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  the  Treaty  Ports  of  China  ...  48 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  Japan 49 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  Egypt ,  51 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  the  Philippine  Islands .         .        .        .•  52 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  Spain '  53 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  Mexico  .......  55 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  Cuba 57 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  Other  Spanish-American  Countries      .  58 

The  Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  Metric  Countries  Generally           .         .  •  60 

Reasons  for  the  Failure  of  Compulsory  Laws  ......  76 

Reasons  for  the  Length  of  the  Transition  Period    ...        .        .  78 

Scientific  and  Industrial  Measurements     .         .        .        i      .  .        .         .  81 

Scientific  and  Industrial  Difficulties          . 85 

The  Adoption  of  the  Metric  System  Necessitates  Abandoning  Mechanical 

Standards 88 

The  Value  of  Mechanical  Standards  .         .         .                 .                 .  97 

"The  Government  Will  Pay  the  Cost" 101 

The  Inaccuracy  of  the  Metre ^T03 

The  Abandoned  Portions  of  the  Metric  System 105 

The  "Confusion"  of  Our  Weights  and  Measures 108 

The  Complications  Due  to  a  Mixture  of  Units         .        .         .        .         .  112 

Examination  of  the  Claims  of  Superiority  for  the  Metric  System  .         .  115 

The  Foreign  Trade  Argument 122 

Analysis  of  the  Bill 128 

The  Object  of  the  Bill 132 

Conclusion ...        .        .        .  137 

THE   METRIC   FAILURE   IN  THE  TEXTILE  INDUSTRY 

The  Metric  Fallacy  as  to  Textiles 141 

Textile  Weights  and  Measures 155 

The  Continental  Chaos 167 

The  English  and  the  Metric  Systems  Compared 197 

Conclusion   .............  221 

APPENDIX 

Action  of  Various  Associations  on  the  Metric  System  Bill  which  was  re- 
ported favorably  to  the  Fifty-seventh  Congress          ....  228 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY 


INTRODUCTION". 

The  English  system  of  weights  and  measures  is  the  exclusive 
standard  of  all  English-speaking  countries,  while  the  metric 
system  is  the  exclusive  standard  of  no  nation  on  earth.  Anglo- 
Saxon  nations  are  blessed  with  substantial  uniformity  of  weights 
and  measures,  while  others  are  cursed  with  a  confusion  that  is  a 
reproach  to  their  civilization. 

The  Anglo-Saxon  nations  are  the  only  ones  that  have  ever 
dealt  with  the  subject  of  weights  and  measures  in  a  rational 
manner.  For  centuries,  while  these  matters  were  elsewhere 
drifting  into  worse  and  worse  confusion,  England,  by  fostering 
that  process  of  development  which  has  always  characterized  the 
Anglo-Saxon  race,  was  giving  heed  to  the  injunction,  "  Prove 
all  things,  hold  fast  that  which  is  good."  The  United  States  in 
turn — not  by  legislative  interference,  but  by  the  spontaneous 
action  of  the  community — has  followed  the  same  process  and 
eliminated  some  of  the  superfluous  units  which  are  still  current 
in  England. 

In  no  matter  does  the  contrast  between  the  Anglo-Saxon  and 
the  Latin  races  show  to  better  advantage  or  more  characteristi- 
cally than  in  this.  In  France  the  policy  of  drift  had,  at  the  time 
of  the  Revolution,  brought  about  a  state  of  things  which  can 
only  be  described  as  chaos,  and  in  true  French  style  the  remedy 
was  sought  not  in  evolution  but  in  revolution,  and  the  result 
was  the  metric  system. 

The  history  of  the  system  elsewhere  is  the  same.  Throughout 
the  German  Empire  and  throughout  Spanish-speaking  countries 
the  same  intolerable  confusion  reigned,  and  the  same  remedy  was 
sought.  At  its  birth  the  offspring  of  revolution,  it  has  remained 
the  foster  child  of  force.  While  proclaiming  it  as  the  perfect 
thing,  its  friends  have  relied  not  on  its  merits  but  have  every- 
where resorted  to  compulsion.  In  the  United  States  they  dis- 
claim compulsion,  it  is  true,  but  they  have  nevertheless  intro- 
duced in  Congress  a  bill  which  is  compulsory  to  the  limit  per- 
mitted by  the  Constitution;  while  in  England,  Canada  and 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

Australia,  where  such  limitations  do  not  exist,  they  urge  compul- 
sion without  disguise. 

Nowhere  has  the  system  made  material  progress  in  industry 
except  when  backed  by  the  policeman's  club.  For  more  than  a 
century  it  has  been  the  pet  of  the  legislator,  and  with  the  result 
that  in  France  to-day  its  most  ardent  advocates  are  calling  for 
more  laws  to  compel  its  use  by  whole  industries  that  do  not, 
and  by  the  testimony  of  these  same  advocates  will  not,  use  it 
unless  compelled  to  do  so. 

With  their  system  of  weights  and  measures  as  a  foundation, 
the  English-speaking  peoples  have  built  up  the  greatest  commer- 
cial and  industrial  structure  the  world  has  known.  This  system 
they  are  asked  to  abandon  for  the  benefit  of  others  at  a  cost  that 
is  beyond  estimate,  and  for  compensating  advantages  that  to  them- 
selves are  wholly  trivial  and  imaginary.  They  are  asked  to  enter 
the  slough  of  despond  in  which  metric  Europe  wallows  in  order 
to  help  metric  Europe  out.  They  are  asked  to  destroy  the  very 
warp  and  woof  of  their  own  vast  industrial  fabric  in  order  that 
they  may  assist  in  weaving  another  of  alien  origin  and  with  no 
resulting  gain  except  to  aliens. 

We  hear  much  of  the  unity  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race — unity  in 
language,  in  customs,  in  laws,  in  popular  government,  in  progress, 
in  ideals,  in  civilization.  In  nothing  is  this  unity  more  marked 
than  in  weights  and  measures — the  foundation  of  that  commercial 
and  industrial  structure  which  others  may  imitate  but  cannot 
copy.  Representative  of  their  historic  methods  of  development, 
foundation  of  their  industrial  life  and  bond  of  union  between  all 
sections — shall  all  these  be  destroyed  for  this  French  fad  ? 


THE  PEO-METKIC  ARGUMENT. 

The  argument  for  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  by  the 
American  people  is  based  upon  the  tacit  assumption  that  they 
can  do  it,  and  do  it  easily.  The  statements  made  at  the  hearings 
of  the  House_Committee  on  Coinage,  Weights  and  Measures  of 
the  57th  Congress  are  sprinkled  with  opinions  that  the  change 
is  an  easy  one,  and  that  the  period  of  transition  will  be  short. 
Thus  Professor  Elihu  Thompson  (page  2*)  said: 

"  I  think  the  government  could  begin  right  off  and  should  give  the 
manufacturers  about  two  years  for  preparation  in  getting  their  new 
gauges  and  in  making  plans  for  new  work  in  the  metric  system." 

Mr.  F.  O.  Blackwell  (page  2)  thought  time  should  be  allowed, 
"  say  five  or  six  years."  Mr.  E.  M.  Hewlett  thought  (page  3) 
that  "  two  or  three  years  would  be  required  for  the  change  pro- 
vided manufacturers  from  whom  raw  materials  are  obtained 
cooperate."  Mr.  H.  G.  Reist  (page  3)  thought  that  "  two  to  five 
years  time  should  be  allowed  for  the  change."  Mr.  Christie  (page 
8)  thought  that  "  perhaps  a  few  years  might  occur  before  the 
transformation  was  entirely  effected."  Mr.  William  Whitman 
(page  17)  said: 

"  I  think  at  least  two  years'  notice  ought  to  be  given  *  *  *  During 
those  two  years  there  would  be  ample  time  for  all  the  necessary  prepara- 
tion and  discussion.  *  *  *  I  do  not  apprehend  any  difficulty  in  bring- 
ing about  the  change." 

Dr.  H.  W.  Wiley  (page  52)  said : 

"  If  you  can  put  it  in  here  two  or  three  years  or  four  or  five  years 
ahead,  everybody  can  accommodate  himself  to  that." 

Mr.  Jas.  K.  Taylor  (page  58)  said: 

"  I  would  strongly  favor  it  except  that  I  should  say  that  there  were 
difficulties  ahead  for  about  two  years." 

*  Unless  otherwise  specified  or  obvious  from  the  context,  all  page  refer- 
ences in  this  book  are  to  the  pamphlet  containing  the  statements  made 
before  the  House  Committee  on  Coinage,  Weights  and  Measures. 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

Mr.  Bates,  in  questioning  Mr.  Bond  (page  92),  asked: 

"  During  the  period  of  transition  can  you  not  use  interchangeable  terms 
for  a  year  or  two  in  both  systems?  " 

Mr.  G.  L.  Cabot,  after  stating  that  "  in  the  case  of  Germany 
and  Austria  only  between  two  and  three  years  were  required  to 
make  the  complete  change  (page  135),  added: 

"  It  seems  to  me  reasonable  to  suppose  that  in  this  country  the  change 
could  be  made  quite  as  speedily." 

Professor  Stratton,  when  addressing  the  Western  Society  of 
Engineers  in  May,  1902,  said: 

"  The  experience  of  other  countries  has  shown  that  the  inconvenience 
and  expense  has  been  greatly  over-estimated." 

Professor  Simon  Newcomb  (page  72)  said : 

"  My  conclusion  is  that  the  system  can  be  introduced  with  great  ad- 
vantage to  all  concerned,  and  if  once  introduced  we  will  in  five  or  ten 
years  be  ready  to  wonder  that  we  were  ever  willing  to  use  any  other 
system." 

At  the  discussion  of  the  Mechanical  Engineers  *  Mr.  E.  J. 
Miller  quoted  Lord  Kelvin  thus: 

"  I  believe  that  in  a  fortnight  people  would  become  so  accustomed  to 
the  perfect  simplicity  and  easy  working  of  the  metrical  system  that  they 
will  feel  that  instead  of  its  being  a  labor  to  pass  from  one  system  to  the 
other  it  will  be  less  than  no  labor." 

The  metric  case  is  again  based  upon  the  convenient  assumption 
that  the  old  units  will  disappear  with  the  adoption  of  the  system, 
whatever  that  word  may  mean,  whereas,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  in 
no  country  of  the  world  is  the  change  complete  nor  is  the  end 
in  sight. 

The  pro-metric  argument  is,  substantially,  an  a  priori  argu- 
ment. The  metric  advocates  adopt  the  methods  of  the  old 
philosophers  who  laboriously  sought  to  prove  what  ought  to  be. 
My  method  is  that  of  modern  science,  which  interrogates  nature 
in  order  to  learn  what  is.  For  instance,  they  tell  us  how  easily 

*  This  discussion  of  the  American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers  took 
place  at  its  meeting  of  December,  1902T~It  will  be  referred  to  repeatedly 
in  these  pages. 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  15 

and  how  quickly  this  nation  ought  to  make  this  change;  I  shall 
show  how  slowly  and  laboriously  France  and  Germany  have  made 
the  change.  They  will  say  that  we  ought  to  adopt  this  system 
to  please  our  foreign  customers ;  I  shall  show  that  our  foreign  cus- 
tomers do  not  care  one  picayune  whether  we  adopt  it  or  not,  and 
I  shall  prove  it  by  a  flood  of  evidence. 


THE  ANTI-METEIC  ARGUMENT. 

This  book  is  an  attempt  to  establish  the  following  leading  prop- 
ositions : 

1.  That  as  shown  by  the  experience  of  other  countries,  the 
changing  of  a  people's  system  of  weights  and  measures  is  a  task 
of  enormous   difficulty,   and  is   attended  with  wide-spread  con- 
fusion.    A  few  general  denials  of  the  facts  regarding  the  per- 
sistence of  old    units  in    metric    countries    were    made  in  the 
discussion  before  the  American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers, 
to  wh'ich  Society  a  portion  of  this  volume  was  originally  contrib- 
uted as  a  paper;  but  the  facts  are  overwhelming,  and  are  of  such 
a  nature  that  they  scarcely  admit  of  being  answered.     It  may, 
then,  be  considered  as  provep  that  with  us,  and  especially  without 
general  compulsory  laws,  which  the  metric  advocates  disclaim, 
the  change  is  impossible. 

2.  That  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system,  meaning  by  that 
term  the  retirement  of    the  inch  and  the    substitution  therefor 
of  the   millimetre,   involves   the    destruction   of   all  mechanical 
standards.     Mr.  F.  J.  Miller,  in  the  above  mentioned  discussion, 
said  that  he  did  not  believe  this,  and,  no  doubt,  Mr.  G.  C.  Hen- 
ning  considers  his  table  of  approximate   equivalents*  to  apply 
here;  but  there  has  been  no  effective  rebuttal  of  the  position 
taken  in  the  paper,  which,  therefore,  I  regard  as  established. 

3.  That  the  prosperity  of  foreign  trade  in  nowise  requires  the 
adoption  of  the  system  as  a  basis  of  manufacture.!     With  the 
exception  of  a  single  reecho  of  the  old  assertions  to  the  contrary 
by  one  of  Mr.  Miller's  correspondents,  there  was  not  in  this  whole 
discussion  a  syllable  of  disproof  of  this  contention,  while  the  con- 
firmation of  it  by  the  experience  of  machinery  manufacturers  is 
overwhelming.     This  proposition  may,  therefore,  be  regarded  as 
not  only  proven,  but  as  accepted  by  the  metric  advocates. 

*  Reproduced  and  discussed  on  a  later  page. 

fThis  is  not  to  be  understood  as  referring  to  its  use  in  commercial 
literature  and  correspondence.  It  is  the  commonest  of  common  sense  to 
say  that  commercial  information  for  metric  countries  should  be  given  in 
metric  units. 


THE   METRIC   FALLACY.  17 

4.  That  the  bill  now  before  Congress  is  a  compulsory  measure, 
so  far  as  it  relates  to  those  who  do  business  with  any  of  the  depart- 
ments of  the  government.     No  reply  was  made  to  this,  in  the 
above-mentioned  discussion,  and,  indeed,  its  truth  was  virtually 
admitted  by  Mr.   Southard.*     It  therefore  may  be  regarded  as 
established. 

5.  That  the  metric  system  has  for  industrial 'purposes  no  such 
superiority  as  is  claimed,  and  that  the  claims  for  the  saving  of 
time  in  calculations  and  in  the  school  life  of  children  are  com- 
pletely negatived  by  the  certainty  that,  here  as  elsewhere,  the  old 
units  will  persist  in  use  and  must  be  learned.    This  again  was  sub- 
stantially ignored  in  the  discussion  of  the  Mechanical  Engineers 
and  may  be  regarded  as  proven. 

6.  That  the  confusion  which  is  said  to  prevail  in  our  weights 
and  measures  is  a  fiction. 

7.  That,  measured  by  the  number  of  units  in  common  use,  and 
by  their  uniform  value  in  all  sections  and  all  industries,  we  have 
the  simplest  and  the  most  uniform  system  of  weights  and  meas- 
ures of  any  country  in  the  world. 

*  Chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on  Coinage,  Weights  and  Measures 
of  the  57th  Congress. 


EKKOKS  OF  AND  MISEEPEESENTATIONS  BY  THE 
METKIC  ADVOCATES. 

In  their  efforts  to  show  how  easily  the  metric  system  may  be 
adopted  by  this  country,  the  metric  advocates  endeavor  to  create 
the  impression  that  it  has  already  made  considerable  progress. 
Thus  Mr.  Stratton,  Director  of  the  National  Bureau  of  Stand- 
ards, stated  at  the  hearings  of  the  House  Committee,  that  the 
Carnegie  Steel  Company  were  about  to  issue  a  metric  edition  of 
their  hand-book.  I  quote  here  because  this  is  too  important  to  be 
treated  in  any  other  way.  In  questioning  Mr.  Linnard  Mr. 
Stratton  said  (page  182)  :  "  And  that  the  Carnegie  people  are 
about  to  issue  a  hand-book  in  which  all  the  formulae  are  printed 
in  the  metric  system  ?  Has  that  been  called  to  your  attention  ?  " 

Following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  by  the  Carnegie  Steel 
Company : 

"  In  reply  to  your  inquiry,  we  beg  to  advise  that  we  have  not  issued  a 
hand-book  containing  formulae  according  to  the  metric  system,  and  have  no 
present  expectation  of  doing  so." 

Mr.  Stratton  repeated  this  statement  before  the  Western  So- 
ciety of  Engineers,*  and  with  it  made  another,  his  words  being  as 
follows :  "  The  National  Tube  Works  has  one  of  its  largest  mills 
fitted  up  for  the  system.  The  Carnegie  people  are  getting  out 
their  hand-book  in  the  metric  system.7' 

Following  is  a  letter  from  Mr.  P.  C.  Patterson,  Mechanical 
Engineer  of  the  National  Tube  Company : 

"  I  find  the  following  conditions  prevailing  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the 
metric  system  in  this  company's  business: 

"  Lap-welded  pipe  for  foreign  countries  using  the  metric  system  is  made 
to  either  the  American  or  English  standard.  Special  lap-welded  goods 
ordered  to  metric  measurements  are  made  to  the  nearest  fraction  of  an 
inch,  no  attempt  being  made  to  get  closer  that  within  i^-inch  of  the 
dimension  called  for. 


*  See  Journal  of  the  Western  Society  of  Engineers,  August,  1902,  page 
344. 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  19 

'•'•  Seamless  tubes  are  made  to  exact  metric  measurements  when  ordered 
by  metric  measurements." 

In  a  more  recent  letter  Mr.  Patterson  says : 

"  This  company  is  not  in  favor  of  any  movement  looKing  toward  a 
radical  change  in  the  standard  of  measurements." 

On  page  11  will  be  found  the  following  dialogue : 

Mr.  Shaffroth. — Do  the  jewellers  use  the  metric  system  in  France? 
Mr.  Troemner. — In  France?     Oh,  yes. 

Mr.   Shaffroth. — And  wherever  the  metric  system  is  adopted? 
Mr.  Troemner. — Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Shaffroth. — Wherever  the  metric  system  is  adopted  and  is  in  prac- 
tical operation  is  there  any  other  system  at  all  used? 
Mr.  Troemner. — None  that  I  know  of. 

While  more  will  follow  later,  the  following  extract  from  a 
letter  by  Tiffany  &  Company  will  supply  Mr.  Troemner  with  the 
information  which  he  now  lacks : 

"In  reply  to  your  letter,  which  we  referred  to  our  Mr.  Kunz,  we  beg  to 
state  that  the  carat  is  the  standard  of  weight  for  gems  all  over  the  world." 

The  above  letter  was  written  in  reply  to  the  categorical  ques- 
tion :  Do  French  and  German  jewellers  use  the  gram  or  the  carat 
in  weighing  diamonds? 

At  the  hearings  of  the  House  Committee  Mr.  William  Whit- 
man said  (page  17) : 

"  On  behalf  of  the  New  England  Cotton  Manufacturers  Association,  of 
which  Mr.  Charles  H.  Fitch  is  president  and  Mr.  C.  J.  H.  Woodbury  is  the 
secretary,  I  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  system." 

The  assertion  that  the  New  England  Cotton  Manufacturers' 
Association  has  endorsed  the  system  appears  a  second  time  on 
page  203  of  the  pamphlet  containing  the  proceedings  of  the  House 
Committee,  and  it  has,  in  fact,  been  repeated  far  and  wide.  Thus 
at  the  discussion  of  the  Mechanical  Engineers,  Professor  W.  W. 
Crosby  said: 

"  The  New  England  Cotton  Manufacturers'  Association  is  on  record  as 
favoring  the  international  standard  (the  base  is  the  metric  system),  for 
numbering  yarns." 

Following  is  a  letter  from  Mr.  C.  J.  H.  Woodbury,  secretary 
of  this  association,  to  Mr.  S.  S.  Dale : 

"  In  reply  to  your  inquiry  of  the  6th  inst.,  I  would  say  that  the  Asso- 
ciation never  committed  itself  to  the  metric  system  of  measuring  yarn." 


20  THE   METRIC   FALLACY. 

At  the  hearings  of  the  House  Committee  Dr.  A.  E.  Kennelly 
(page  13)  stated  that, 

"  The  system  we  use  has  about  64  units.    The  metric  employs  5  or  6."  * 

By  the  report  of  the  bi-partisan  committee  of  the  American 
,  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers  it  will  be  seen  that  according 
to  the  count  of  the  anti-metric  members  the  units  in  common  use 
in  this  country  number  but  19,  while  those  in  common  use  in 
metric  countries  number  30.  Many  of  our  supposed  units  are 
obsolete  and  exist  in  school  books  only.f  Others  are  obsolescent, 
and  still  others  (like  the  apothecary's  weights)  are  of  such  special 
use  as  to  be  of  no  importance  to  the  public  at  large. 

A  favorite  diversion  of  the  metric  advocates  is  to  represent  the 
famous  report  of  John  Quincy  Adams  as  strongly  pro-metric. 
Thus  Mr.  Tittman  (page  32)  said :  "  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams,  who 
gave  four  years  to  the  preparation  of  his  report,  speaking  in  the 
most  glowing  terms  of  the  metric  system,  said  that  if  it  could  only 
be  adopted  it  would  be  an  ideal  one/7  Again  in  the  report  of  the 
House  Committee  +  appears  the  following : 

"  He  [J.  Q.  A.],  however,  advised  delay  until  the  metric  or  international  system, 
which  was  then  in  its  infancy,  had  been  more  fully  tried,  and  to  which  he  referred 
in  a  most  glowing  tribute  as  possessing  all  the  requisites  of  a  simple,  uniform, 
and  workable  system  of  weights  and  measures." 

Following  are  a  few  extracts  from  Mr.  Adams'  report :  § 

"The  metrology  of  France  is  a  new  and  complicated  machine,  formed  upon 
principles  of  mathematical  precision,  the  adaptation  of  which  to  the  uses  for  which 

*  While  this  statement  came  from  Dr.  Kennelly  he  should  not  be  held 
responsible  for  it.  This  number  64  has  become  a  classic  in  pro-metric 
literature. 

t  For  example  the  league,  the  furlong,  the  barleycorn,  the  rood,  the 
chaldron,  the  quarter,  the  sack,  the  dry  gallon. 

|  This  report  may  be  found  in  full  in  the  Journal  of  the  Western  Society  of 
Engineers  for  August,  1902.  The  present  quotation  is  from  page  351. 

§  This  famous  paper  is  not  out  of  date  nor  will  it  ever  be.  It  may  be  found 
in  The  Metric  System,  by  Charles  Davies,  to  which  the  page  numbers  refer,  a 
book  which  is  out  of  print  and  scarce.  The  quotations  in  the  text  were  obtained 
from  a  copy  in  the  Boston  Public  Library: 

The  book  by  Professor  Davies  (he  of  the  mathematical  text  books  of  a  gener- 
ation ago)  is  the  report  of  himself  and  Robt.  S.  Hale  as  a  committee  of  the  Uni- 
versity Convocation  of  the  State  of  New  York.  It  gives  the  conclusions  of  an 
investigation  made  at  the  request  of  Hon.  J.  A.  Kasson,  Chairman  of  the  House 
Committee  on  Coinage,  Weights  and  Measures  in  1866.  In  the'  cases  of  Messrs. 
Davies  and  Hale,  it  is  to  be  noted  also  that  they  began  the  investigation  as  metric 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  21 

it  was  devised  is  yet  problematical  and  abiding,  with  questionable  success,  the 
test  of  experiment."  (Page  178.) 

"  The  decimal  numbers  applied  to  the  French  weights  and  measures  form  one 
of  its  highest  theoretic  excellences.  It  has,  however,  been  proved  by  the  most 
decisive  experience  in  France  that  they  are  not  adequate  to  the  wants  of  man  in 
society."  (Page  197.) 

"  This  illustration  *  *  *  will  disclose  to  our  view  the  causes  which  limit  the 
exclusive  application  of  decimal  arithmetic  to  numbers,  and  admit  only  a  par- 
tial and  qualified  application  of  them  to  weight  and  measure."  (Page  198.) 

"Thus,  then,  it  has  been  proved  by  the  test  of  experience  that  the  principle 
of  decimal  divisions  can  be  applied  only  with  many  qualifications  to  any  general 
system  of  metrology ;  that  its  natural  application  is  only  to  numbers ;  and  that 
time,  space,  gravity,  and  extension  inflexibly  reject  its  sway."  (Page  202.) 

"  Nature  has  no  partialities  for  the  number  ten,  and  the  attempt  to  shackle  her 
freedom  with  them  (sic)  will  forever  prove  abortive."  (Page  204.) 

«  *  *  *  As  this  system  is  yet  new,  imperfect,  susceptible  of  great  improve- 
ment, and  struggling  for  existence  even  in  the  country  which  gave  it  birth* 
*  *  *  "  (Page  217.) 

"But  were  the  authority  of  Congress  unquestionable  *  *  *  it  is  believed 
that  the  French  system  has  not  yet  attained  that  perfection  which  would  justify 
so  extraordinary  an  effort  of  legislative  power  at  this  time."  (Page  268). 

"  For  all  the  professions  concerned  in  ship  or  house  building  and  for  all  who 
have  occasion  to  use  mathematical  instruments  it  [the  metre]  is  quite  unsuitable 
*  *  *  This  inconvenience,  great  in  itself,  is  made  irreparable  when  combined 
with  the  exclusive  principle  of  decimal  divisions.  *  *  *  This  decimal 
despotism  was  found  too  arbitrary  for  endurance.  *  *  *  The  choice  of  the 
kilogram  or  cubical  decimetre  of  distilled  water  as  the  single  standard  unit  of 
weight  with  the  application  to  it  of  the  decimal  divisions  was  followed  by  similar 
inconveniences  *  *  *  But  on  the  other  hand,  decimal  divisions  are  still  more 
inapplicable  to  measures  of  capacity  for  liquids  than  to  linear  measures  or 
weights."  (Pages  199,  200,  201.) 

Mr.  Adams  had  great  admiration  for  the  conception  and  for 
the  efforts  of  the  French  Government  in  its  endeavor  to  establish  a 
universal  system  of  weights  and  measures.  There  are  also  in  the 
report  expressions  of  approbation  for  the  system  which  certainly 
do  not  seem  to  be  consistent  with  the  above  citations,  but  that  the 
report  as  a  whole  can  be  considered  as  an  endorsement  of  the  sys- 
tem in  "  glowing  "  or  any  other  terms  is  simply  not  so. 

What  is  now  the  chief  argument  against  the  adoption  of  the 
system — the  anchoring  of  existing  units  in  manufacturing  in- 

advocates  and  finished  it  as  metric  opponents.  Could  these  reports  be  circulated 
as  they  deserve  to  be,  the  metric  agitation  would  die  a  natural  death. 

*  Note  the  words  "  struggling  for  existence  "  after  twenty-seven  years  of  "  the 
most  stupendous  and  systematic  effort  ever  made  by  a  nation  to  introduce  uni- 
formity in  their  weights  and  measures."  (Mr.  Adams,  page  174.)  And  yet  the 
metric  advocates  represent  Mr.  Adams  as  endorsing  the  system  in  "  the  most 
glowing  terms  "  and  profess  to  believe  that  we  can  make  this  great  change  in 
from  three  to  five  years. 


22  THE   METRIC   FALLACY. 

dustry — is  chiefly  a  growth  since  Mr.  Adams'  time ;  but,  never- 
theless, he  saw  clearly  the  difficulty  of  the  change,  and  much  of 
his  report  is  devoted  to  this  as  distinguished  from  his  strictly 
judicial  analysis  of  the  merits  and  demerits  of  the  system.  To 
illustrate  this  difficulty  he  (page  150)  draws  a  striking  picture  of 
the  then  far  from  complete  adoption  of  our  system  of  currency 
(already  thirty  years  old),  and  on  page  149  he  refers  to  a  change 
of  this  kind  as  "  a  revolution  by  all  experience  known  to  be  in- 
finitely more  easy  to  accomplish  than  that  of  weights  and  meas- 
ures." 

In  the  English  brochure,  The  Coming  of  the  Kilogram,  by  Mr. 
H.  O.  Arnold-Foster,  the  following  may  be  found : 

"  There  are  now  no  longer  a  great  number  of  sets  of  weights  and 
measures  in  use  among  the  civilized  peoples  of  Europe;  there  are  really 
for  all  useful  purposes  two  only.  These  are  the  weights  and  measures 
used  by  the  people  of  the  United  Kingdom  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
weights  and  measures  used  by  all  the  other  civilized  people  of  Europe 
on  the  other. 

"  We  may  travel  from  end  to  end  of  the  great  German  Empire  and  in 
«very  part  of  it  we  shall  find  *  *  *  the  same  weights  and  measures 
used  in  all  the  factories." 

In  the  pamphlet  containing  the  statements  of  those  who  ap- 
peared before  the  House  Committee  on  Coinage,  Weights  and 
Measures,  the  following  statement  and  table  appear  in  an 
appendix  on  page  204: 

The  metric  system  has  been  adopted  by  the  following  countries: 

Argentina.  — Germany. 

Austria-Hungary  and  territories.       —Greece. 

Belgium.  — Gautemala  (Republic  of). 
—Bolivia,  Haiti. 

— Brazil  (Republic  of).  Holland  and  dependencies. 

Bulgaria.  — Honduras. 

(Central  America.)  Italy  and  dependencies. 

— China   (28  ports).  —Japan. 

—Chile.  —Java. 

— Colombia.  Mauritius  and  dependencies. 

— Costa  Rica.  — Mexico. 

— Cuba.  — Nicaraugua. 

Ecuador.  — Norway  and  Sweden. 

— Egypt.  — Ottoman  Empire. 

Finland  (Grand  Duchy  of).  — Peru. 

— France.  — Philippines. 

French  Colonies  including  Mada-  Porto  Rico. 

gascar.  — Portugal,  Azores,  and  Madeira. 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  23 

— Roumania.  — Spain  and  colonies. 

Russia.  — Switzerland. 

— Salvador.  — Uruguay. 

— San  Domingo  (Republic  of).  Forty-three  countries. 

Servia. 

The  series  of  questions  sent  to  manufacturers  by  the  Franklin 
Institute  in  a  circular  letter  dated  October,  1902,  contains  the 
following  (italics  mine) : 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  following  countries  officially  and  customarily 
employ  the  metric  system  of  weights  and  measures,  namely,  France,  Ger- 
many, Austria-Hungary,  Norway  and  Sweden,  Grand  Duchy  of  Finland, 
Holland,  Belgium,  Switzerland,  Spain,  Portugal,  Italy,  Servia,  Roumania, 
Bulgaria,  Greece,  the  Ottoman  Empire,  Japan,  China  (28  ports),  Egypt, 
Mexico,  the  Central  American  and  South  American  Countries,  the  depend- 
encies of  the  above-mentioned  countries  and  the  Latin  acquisitions  of  the 
United  States,  do  you  not  consider  that  it  would  be  desirable  to  adopt  the 
metric  system  in  the  United  States  with  a  view  to  bringing  about  inter- 
national uniformity  in  weights  and  measures? 

The  preamble  of  the  resolutions  passed  by  the  Engineers' 
Society  of  Western  Pennsylvania  contains  the  following: 

"  Whereas  the  metric  system  has  been  adopted  by  all  except  two  of  the 
civilized  nations  of  the  world." 

The*  report  of  the  House  Committee  on  Coinage,  Weights  and 
Measures  by  which  the  pending  bill  was  recommended  to  passage 
contains  the  words : 

"  It  is  now  used  by  about  two-thirds  of  the  people  of  the  world."   . 

No  man  living  or  dead  has  even  seen  the  first  scintilla  of  evi- 
dence that  these  statements  are  true.  They  have  no  foundation 
in  fact,  and  no  foundation  of  any  kind  except  simple  assumption 
combined  with  credulous  willingness  to  believe  anything  what- 
ever favorable  to  the  system.  Having  made  the  initial  assump- 
tion that  this  change  is  an  easy  one,  the  metric  advocates  follow 
it  by  another — that  it  has  been  accomplished  in  all  countries 
which  have  passed  any  kind  of  a  law  favorable  to  the  system. 
How  far  from  true  this  assumption  is  will  appear  from  the  suc- 
ceeding sections. 


THE  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  GERMAN 
TEXTILE  INDUSTRIES. 

The  testimony  before  the  House  committee  is  sprinkled  with 
opinions  that  this  great  change  can  be  made  in  from  three  to  five 
years  (Mr.  Bates,  page  92,  seems  to  think  "  a  year  or  two  "  will 
be  sufficient).  In  this  matter  we  do  not,  however,  need  to  re- 
gard opinions  at  all,  but  may  apply  the  scientific  method  at  once 
and  consult  the  facts. 

At  the  discussion  of  the  Mechanical  Engineers  there  was  ex- 
hibited a  collection  of  French  and  German  books  from  the 
library  of  the  Textile  World.  These  books  present  a  condition 
of  things  which  is  absolutely  startling.  As  instructive  as  any  is 
a  little  German  book  of  105  pages,  "  Kalkulator  fur  Artikel  der 
Textilbranche  "  (Calculator  for  Articles  in  the  Textile  Industries), 
by  Friedrich  Frowein,  third  edition,  1901.  The  object  of  this 
book  is  to  give  a  simplified  system  of  calculating  for  textile  fabrics, 
and  it  discloses  a  condition  of  things  in  German-speaking  Europe 
compared  with  which  our  own  is  simple  indeed.  This  condition 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  there  are  still  in  use  nine  different  ells  in 
addition  to  the  metre  and  the  English  yard.  These  ells  are  divided 
into  inches,  an  inch  ranging  all  the  way  between  ^V  and  3^-  of  an 
ell,  and  such  extraordinary  ratios  as  these  being  still  in  use : 

Prussian  ell 25J  inches. 

Wurtemberg  ell 34 J  inches. 

Vienna  ell 29J  inches. 

In  brief  the  book  shows  that  there  is  still  in  use  in  German 
textile  mills  an  absolute  medley  of  ells,  inches,  yards,  metres,  kilo- 
grams, and  pounds,  combined  with  a  vast  number  of  systems  of 
yarn  numbering  based  upon  these  different  units  of  length  and 
weight,  while  towering  above  all  these  systems  of  yarn  numbering 
are  found  the  English  yard  and  pound  in  all  branches  except  the 
silk  industry,  in  which  the  metric  system  cuts  a  very  small  figure. 

In  the  Textile  World  for  October,  1902,  is  an  article  into 
which  has  been  lifted  bodily  the  following  specimen  of  Frowein's 
simplified  calculations  of  the  cost  of  a  piece  of  worsted  cloth  : 


THE  METRIC   FALLACY.  25 

Kalkulation. 

Ein  Stiick  einen  Meter  breit  und  hundert  Meier  fang. 

K  e  1 1  e  per  cm  24  Faden  48r_\yeft  IDouble). 
Einschuss  per  cm  28  5chuss~jWr_^Smgle_Weft  (einfach). 
Kieth  (Blalt)  per  cm  12  Rohr  2fadig. 


E  nglische  _We  ife. 
K  e  1 1  e  •  18x  Weft  A~100  Meter  33/4  Gr. 

2400  Faden  =  240000  Meter  =  =  9000  Gr. 

Verschmalerung  4  %,  96  Faden  =  9600  Meter  =   360  .    =  9360  Gr. 
Einkreuzcn  8%  =  19968  Meter  749    , 

10109  Gr. 

Stoft_per_engl._P£d.  Mk.  3.- 
Farbrn",       „         „"      .  -.20 

1_engl._P_fd.  Mk.  3.20,  daher  obige  10109Gr.  Mix.    71,89 

Einschuss:  fOj^Sjnglc.  Weft  a  100  Meter  2V4  Gr. 
28  Schuss  per  cm  =  280000  Meter  =  6300  Gr. 
Einkreuzen  2%  —  5600  Meter  =  126  ,  =  6426  Gr. 

toff  £cr_engl..  Pfd.  Mk.  2.— 
'aTben  „       ,        ,"     „  -.20 

1  engl^PW.  Mk.  2.20,  daher  obige  6426  Gr.    „       31.42 

Mk.  10331 

Verlust  6  % 6.20 

Mk.  109.51 

Fingirter  Satz  «iehe  erste  Kalkulation  50  % 54.76 

Mk.  164.27 

Spesen  und  Zinsen  10  % „      16.43 

Herstellungskosten Mk.  1JJ0.70 

Zu  obigem  Stuck  sind  erforderlich : 

Kette          269568  Meter  =  294933.  Yards_4_56p_Yards  1  Zahl_^_526j/,  Zajilen 
Einschuss  285600         ,    =312473      „       a  560          ""  1  "   "  =558 


A  GERMAN  ESTIMATE  OP  COST  OP  A  WORSTED  FABRIC  AT  THE  PRESENT  TIME. 
THE  ENGLISH  STANDARDS  ARE  MARKED  WITH  DOTTED  LINES. 

Mr.  Dale  describes  the  operations  performed  in  this  illustration 
thus: 

"  The  raw  material  is  purchased  by  the  English  pound.  The  finished  goods  are 
sold  by  the  French  metre.  The  yarn  counts  are  English,  while  the  length  and 
width  of  the  finished  goods  are  metric.  The  length  of  the  yarn  is  expressed  in 
metres,  while  the  counts  are  English,  based  upon  the  yard  and  the  pound. 
From  this  hodgepodge  the  weight  of  the  yarn  is  calculated  in  grams,  which  is 
extended  by  another  arithmetical  somersault  at  a  price  given  in  marks  per 
English  pound,  and  to  cap  the  climax  the  total  length  of  the  yarn  in  metres 
is  reduced  to  English  yards  and  then  to  English  skeins  of  560  yards  each. 

"There  is  no  theory  here.  This  estimate  is  an  example  of  German  practice  at 
this  moment,  and  yet  men  can  be  found  who  say  that  the  metric  system  was 
adopted  in  Germany  in  two  years  without  inconvenience,  some  asserting  they 
were  present  when  the  trick  was  done ;  and  stranger  still,  other  meu  can  be  found 
who  believe  it." 


26  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

Note  that  this  example  is  relatively  a  simple  one,  because  it 
contains  none  of  the  ells  nor  inches,  but  relates  to  yards,  metres, 
pounds,  and  grams  only.  It  hence  represents  exactly  the  condi- 
tion which  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  would  bring  about  in 
our  own  mills. 

A  second  German  book  is  "  Garn-Nummerirungen,  Haspe- 
lungen  und  Vergleichende  oder  Umrechnungstabellen "  (Yarn 
Numbering,  Keeling,  and  Comparative  Reckoning  Tables),  by 
Heinrich  Kutzer,  1901.  This  book  contains  a  great  number  of 
tables  for  comparing  and  reducing  the  numerous  units  of  length 
and  weight,  and  is  of  wider  scope,  geographically,  than  the  first  one 
cited.  It  shows  that  21  ells  are  in  use  in  European  countries  in 
which  the  metric  system  is  nominally  established. 

A  third  German  book  is  "  Methodik  der  Bindungslehre  und  De- 
composition f iir  Schaf tweberei  "  (A  System  of  Weaves  and  Analy- 
sis for  Harness  Weaving),  by  Franz  Donant,  1901.  This  con- 
tains an  explanation  of  the  various  systems  of  yarn  numbering 
used  in  German-speaking  countries.  It  is  chiefly  significant  be- 
cause of  the  order  in  which  these  systems  occur,  as  the  English 
system  heads  every  list  except  the  last,  in  which  there  is  no  Eng- 
lish system.  Following  are  the  lists : 

Cotton — English,  French,  metric  (note  the  French}. 

Linen — English,  Austrian  (no  metric). 

Jute — English  only. 

Worsted — English,  metric. 

Woollen — English,  Austrian,  Prussian,  Saxon,  metric. 

Silk— Milan,  Turin,  Lyons,  metric. 

11.  A  fourth  German  book  is  "  Mechanische  Technologie  der 
Weberei "  (Mechanical  Technology  of  Weaving),  by  G.  Herman 
Oelsner,  eighth  edition,  1902. 

This  is  an  elaborate  and  beautifully  printed  treatise  of  942 
pages.  In  it  page  after  page  is  devoted  to  conversion  tables 
giving  metric  equivalents  of  Rhenish,  Leipsic,  and  English  inches, 
as  well  as  of  Leipsic  and  Berlin  ells  and  of  English  yards. 

On  page  130  may  be  found  the  metric  equivalents  of  the  follow- 
ing ells:  Prussian,  Saxon,  Brabant,  Bavarian,  Wurtemberg,  Baden, 
Vienna,  English,  Danish,  Swedish,  Russian.  On  page  74  he  refers 
to  the  Cockerill  system  of  yarn  numbering  used  in  Belgium,  and 
which  is  based  OR  the  length  of  2,240  Berlin  ells. 
'  On  page  75  he  refers  to  six  systems  of  numbering  for  carded 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 


woollen  yarn  as  follows:  Prussian,  Saxon,  Austrian,  English,  El- 
bceuf,  Sedan. 

On  page  121  are  some  striking  illustrations  of  the  annihilation 
of  vulgar  fractions  by  the  metric  system.  In  a  table  giving  the 
number  of  threads  per  French  inch  and  per  centimetre  the  follow- 
ing mixed  numbers  occur  in  the  first  line:  ll-j^V,  31^,  24|j>f,  67/g 
A  footnote  to  this  page  states  that  the  French  inch  is  used  for 
gauging  the  set  of  fabrics  in  Switzerland. 

In  this  connection  I  clip  (italics  mine)  the  following  from  the 
Textile  World  for  September,  1902 : 

"  A  writer  in  the  Leipziger  Monatschrift  fuer  Textil-Industrie  expresses  his  con- 
viction that  German  cotton  manufacturers  must  abandon  the  hope  of  driving 
from  that  country  the  English  system  of  yarn  numbering.  This  view  has  been 
strengthened,  undoubtedly,  by  the  action  of  the  tariff  committee  of  the  Reichstag, 
which,  owing  to  the  strong  opposition  of  German  mill  owners,  has  rejected  the 
proposal  to  compel  the  exclusive  use  of  the  metric  system  for  yarn,  and  has  ar- 
ranged the  yarn  .schedules  in  the  new  tariff  bill  in  accordance  with  the  English 
counts,  thus  continuing  the  official  German  sanction  of  the  English  system." 

The  English  system  of  yarn  counts  carries  with  it  the  yard  and 
the  pound,  and  this  recognition  of  them  is  an  official  confession 
that  twenty-eight  years  of  effort  to  introduce  the  metre  and  the 
kilogram  as  a  basis  of  yarn  counts  has  resulted  in  failure. 

I  also  give  without  comment,  except  italics,  the  following  from 
Wochenberichte  Handelsblatt  der  Leipziger  Monatschrift  fuer 
Textil-Industrie^  July  16,  1902: 

"  At  the  session  of  the  [German]  Tariff  Commission  on  the  24th  of  June,  the 
question  came  up  regarding  the  employment  of  the  metric  system  for  cotton 
yarn.  According  to  one  delegate,  Muench-Ferber,  who  is  also  a  partner  in  a 
woollen  and  cotton  weaving  mill,  '  the  use  of  the  metric  system  for  yarn  would 
lead  to  ungodly  disorder  (heillose  Verwirrung)  in  the  domestic  weaving  in- 
dustry, since  our  machines  are  constructed  for  the  use  of  the  English  numbers.'  " 


THE  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  FRENCH 
TEXTILE  INDUSTRIES. 

In  France  the  condition  is,  if  possible,  still  worse.  Illustrat- 
ing this  may  be  cited  "  Traite  Theoretique  et  Pratique  de  Tissage  " 
(Theoretical  and  Practical  Treatise  on  Weaving),  by  Paul  Lamoi- 
tier,  1900.  This  is  a  standard  French  work  on  textiles  of  573 
pages.  On  page  27  may  be  seen  a  comparative  yarn  table  giv- 
ing equivalents  of  the  following  systems  of  yarn  counting,  which 
are  thus  compared  because  they  are  still  in  use : 

Worsted — Metric,  Roubaix,  Reims,  Fourmies,  English,  Ger- 
man. 

On  page  52  is  a  similar  table  for 

Silk — Lyons,  Italian,  metric. 

On  page  60  is  a  table  for 

Cotton — English,  French,  metric  (note  the  French  again). 

On  page  63  is  an  illuminating  sentence.  Opening  a  section  on 
yarn  numbering  for  linen,  hemp,  and  jute  is  this  sentence :  "  On 
emploie  le  titrage  anglais  "  (We  use  the  English  system  of  num- 
bering yarn).  Following  this  comes  the  following  beautiful  ex- 
ample of  how  the  decimal  system  has  swept  all  before  it  in  France : 

"The  lea  is  300  yards,  or  274.2  metres;  12  leas  make  a  skein  of  3,600  yards; 
100  skeins  a  bundle  of  360,000  yards." 

On  page  88  the  author  gives  a  table  showing  the  weight  of 
weft  or  filling  for  one  metre  of  worsted  cloth  by  the  Fourmies 
(an  old  French)  system,  and  on  page  87  states  that  "  this  table 
is  given  because  the  Fourmies  is  used  to  a  greater  extent  than 
any  other  system  of  yarn  numbering  for  worsted." 

In  the  early  part  of  the  book,  on  page  24,  the  following  may 
be  seen: 

"  We  shall  further  on  study  the  counts  of  silk,  cotton,  linen,  etc.  We  regret 
extremely  these  anomalies  which  obstruct  business,  lead  to  serious  errors,  and 
wantonly  complicate  all  calculations." 

Perhaps  the  most  curious  example  of  all  in  the  French  textile 
industries  is  the  count  of  the  weft  threads  in  the  fabric — the 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  29 

number  of  "  picks  "  of  the  loom.  Here,  if  anywhere,  it  would 
seem  to  be  easy  to  introduce  the  centimetre,  but  nevertheless  the 
French  weaver  counts  his  picks  by  the  inch  (pouce),  and  (save 
the  mark!)  37  French  inches  equal  1  metre.  On  page  90  of  the 
book  under  notice  is  the  following: 

"The  filling  is  ordinarily  reckoned  arbitrarily  by  the  quarter  inch,  and  it  is 
necessary,  before  the  calculation  of  a  fabric,  to  convert  the  picks  per  quarter  inch 
into  picks  per  centimetre.  There  are  148  quarters  of  an  inch  in  a  metre;  1  centi- 
metre is  equal  to  1.48  quarters  of  an  inch;  5  picks  per  quarter  inch  are  equal  to 
7 1*0  picks  per  centimetre." 

In  U  Industrie  Textile,  the  leading  French  textile  journal,  for 
August. 15,  1902,  is  a  four-page  description  of  a  new  worsted-spin- 
ning frame,  and  an  account  of  a  test  of  it.  At  the  conclusion  of 
the  mechanical  description  the  capacity  of  the  machine  is  given  for 
different  sizes  of  yarn.  These  sizes  are  given  in  the  Roubaix  sys- 
tem, under  which  the  test  was  made,  which  figures  are  then  trans- 
lated into  the  metric  system. 

It  is  wholly  impossible  in  a  few  paragraphs  to  even  indicate 
the  confusion  and  complexity  which  are  shown  by  these  books  to 
prevail  in  the  weights  and  measures  of  metric  Europe.  The 
complications  introduced  by  them  into  textile  calculations  are 
beyond  belief. 

In  these  books  are  pages  after  pages  of  conversion  tables  be- 
tween the  various  ells  and  between  the  ells  and  the  yard  and 
metre,  added  to  which  are  conversion  formulas  making  a  total 
which  is  fairly  maddening.  These  comparative  calculations  and 
reductions  are  an  essential  part  of  all  French  and  German  textile 
literature.  A  French  or  German  work  on  textiles  dealing  with 
metric  weights  and  measures  alone  would  be  worthless  to  99  per 
cent,  of  the  French  and  German  textile  industry.  Note  that  all 
looks  cited  are  modern. 

They  are  but  a  small  portion  of  those  in  the  possession  of  the 
Textile  World,  the  whole  collection  offering,  in  fact,  an  em- 
barrassment of  illustrative  material. 

A  concise  statement  of  present-day  French  practice  from"  a 
recognized  French  authority  will,  no  doubt,  be  considered  by  some 
to  possess  greater  weight  than  the  most  obvious  deductions  from 
books,  and,  very  opportunely,  M.  Paul  Lamoitier,  the  author  of 
the  book  last  above  cited,  publishes  a  leading  article  on  "  The  Uni- 
fication of  Yarn  Numbering  "  in  U Industrie  Textile  for  October 
15,  1902,  of  which  journal  he  is,  I  believe,  the  associate  editor. 


30  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

From  advance  sheets  of  the  Textile  World  for  December  I  make 
the  following  extracts  from  a  translation  of  this  article : 

"  It  is  absolutely  unworthy  of  us  French  who  were  the  first  to  find  and  apply 
the  metric  system  to  retain  the  aune  and  the  denier  for  measuring  silk.  Ah !  these 
Americans  are  not  considerate  of  our  feelings  and  they  are  right.  We  are  as 
much  in  the  anarchy  of  weights  and  measures  for  the  textile  industry  as  at  the 
time  of  the  Revolution,  for  we  have  the  denier  of  Montpel-ier  and  of  Milan,  for  silk, 
with  the  aune  as  a  unit  of  length.  We  still  have  the  diverse  standards  of  Roubaix, 
Fourmies  and  Reims  for  worsted,  the  moque  of  Sedan,  the  lime,  the  quart  and  the 
sows  of  Elboeuf ,  the  yard  for  linen,  etc.  Ah !  the  famous  aune,  do  you  know  its 
equivalent?  Exactly  3  feet  7  inches  10  lines  and  10  points,  or  in  other  words, 
1.188447  metres, the  foot  being  equal  to  .324839  metres  and  divided  into  12  inches, 
the  inch  into  12  lines  and  the  line  into  12  points.  [The  foot  and  inch  referred  to 
here  are  obviously  the  French  foot  and  inch.]  » 

"The  yarn  count  in  the  north  of  France  is  a  length  and  in  the  centre,  a  weight. 
I  will  take  my  oath  that  the  manufacturer  of  Rouen,  if  he  has  not  studied  each 
section  separately,  has  no  idea  what  is  the  standard  of  Reims  or  the  denier 
of  Lyons  or  Milan.  And  on  the  other  hand,  the  manufacturers  of  Reims  and 
Lyons  are  likewise  puzzled  in  making  comparisons  of  the  diverse  numberings  of 
the  diverse  materials. 

"And  this  is  the  reason  why  they  are  right  in  mocking  us  when  they  say  we  do 
not  use  the  metric  system  for  numbering  yarn  and  for  weaving  calculations. 
Nothing  is  more  arbitrary  than  to  reckon  the  yarn  by  the  thousand  metrss  and 
the  width  of  the  cloth  and  the  picks  of  the  filling  by  the  inch.  It  is  nonsense  and 
a  derision.  Note  also  that,  while  I  speak  here  only  of  France,  I  could  say  as 
much  of  all  Europe." 

Later  in  the  article  the  author  calls  for  a  compulsory  law  to  com- 
pel the  use  of  the  metric  system  in  French  textile  industries,  and 
adds: 

"  The  advantages?  It  would  put  a  stop  to  the  chaos  which  the  Americans  ridi- 
cule. *  '*  *  In  short,  they  would  not  ridicule  us  any  more.  It  is  not  pleas- 
ant to  be  thus  continually  ridiculed  by  foreigners,  especially  when  they  have  good 
reason  for  doing  so.  *  *  *  In  the  face  of  foreign  sarcasm  it  [the  metric  sys- 
tem of  yarn  numbering]  should  be  established  at  the  earliest  possible  moment." 

In  the  November  issue  of  U  Industrie  Textile,  M.  Lamoitier 
has  another  article  in  which  he  points  out  an  "  annoying  anomaly," 
namely,  the  fact  that  French  loom  widths  are  expressed  in  quarter 
yards.'  Eef erring  to  the  results  of  a  change  in  these  widths  to 
metric  dimensions  he  adds  (italics  mine) : 

"  We  have  now  a  confusion  which  will  spread  throughout  the  world  and  increase 
with  the  general  adoption  of  the  metric  system." 

The  references  to  American  criticism  of  French  practice  in  the 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  31 

above  relate  to  articles  in  recent  issues  of  the  Textile  World.  The 
anti-metric  fight  which  Mr.  Dale  has  conducted  in  the  columns 
of  that  journal,  as  well  as  his  assistance  in  the  preparation  of  this 
paper,  deserves  all  the  recognition  which  I  can  give. 

At  this  point  it  is  interesting  to  quote  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Wiley  (page  51):  "There  is  only  one  great  objection  to  the 
metric  system,  and  that  is,  it  is  going  to  weaken  our  mathemati- 
cal abilities,  because  we  will  not  have  this  immense  practice  in 
computation  which  we  have  to  have  now."  The  system  seems 
not  to  have  had  that  effect  in  France  and  Germany. 

In  the  simplicity  and  uniformity  of  its  weights  and  measures 
this  country  is  fortunate  beyond  comparison  with  Continental 
Europe. 

The  meaning  of  all  this,  and  the  lesson  to  be  learned  from  it, 
is  not,  however,  that  the  textile  industries  of  France  and  Ger- 
many are  infinitely  worse  off  than  our  own  as  regards  their  sys- 
tems of  weights  and  measures,  nor  that  their  textile  calculations 
are  infinitely  more  laborious  than  ours  (both  of  which,  however, 
are  facts),  but  that  twenty-eight  years  after  the  compulsory  adop- 
tion of  the  metric  system  in  Germany  the  old  units  still  persist  to 
an  extent  calling  for  such  books,  and  that,  in  France,  a  hundred 
years  of  time,  national  pride,  and  a  despotic  government  com- 
bined have  not  succeeded  in  killing  the  old  units.  The  only 
effect  of  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  in  both  of  these  coun- 
tries has  been  to  add  a  new  set  of  units  to  the  old  ones.  Shall 
history  repeat  itself  here? 

If  the  reader  wishes  further  confirmation  of  these  facts,  he 
may  find  it  in  the  "  Report  of  the  International  Congress  for  the 
Unification  of  the  Numbering  of  Yarn,"  held  at  the  Paris  Exposi- 
tion of  1900.  From  Mr.  C.  J.  H.  Woodbury's  translation  I  make 
the  following,  extracts : 

M.  De  Pacher  "  believed  that  the  numbering  of  yarns  could  not  be  introduced 
in  every  country  except  by  the  authority  of  a  law  positively  ordering  its  use  to 
take  place  on  a  certain  date  for  all  textile  industry  and  for  all  commerce  in  every 
kind  of  yarn.  The  change  would  be  made  by  a  law,  or  it  would  not  be  made  at 
all.  He  was  convinced  that  the  spinners  who  commenced  to  wind  and  to  number 
their  products  according  to  the  resolutions  of  the  Congress  before  a  law  should  be 
enacted  to  forbid  the  sale  of  yarns  wound  and  numbered  according  to  the  old  way, 
would  probably  keep  their  yarns  and  would  be  obliged  to  sell  at  a  loss." 

Note  the  agreement  of  this  speaker  with  M.  Lamoitier,  that 
after  110  years  of  the  metric  system  in  France  more  compulsory 
law  is  needed. 


32  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

Said  the  Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  Congress,  M.  Ferdi- 
nand Roy  (italics  mine) : 

At  present,  one  of  the  arguments  of  the  English  Government  is  this :  the  inter- 
national commerce  is  carried  on  under  the  English  numbering  and  this  proves 
how  much  this  numbering  has  entered  into  the  customs  so  that  even  in  certain 
countries  where  the  metric  system  is  obligatory,  the  custom  tariffs  are  established  for 
yarns  according  to  the  English  numbering.  *  *  *  For  raw  and  finished  silk, 
France  has  maintained  up  to  the  present  time  the  old  standard;  the  grain  or 
denier  (a  copper  coin  weighing  1£  grammes)  being  the  unit  of  weight  and  the  ell 
being  the  unit  of  length.  The  legal  standard  indicated  by  the  law  of  June  13, 
1866,  and  expressing  the  weight  in  grammes  of  a  small  skein  of  500  metres  has 
never  been  adopted  by  commerce. 

Said  M.  Edouard  Simon,  Secretary  of  the  Commission  of  Organi- 
zation (italics  mine) : 

"We  have  thought  that  there  would  also  be  an  opportunity  to  modify,  in  con- 
'ormity  with  the  conclusions  of  the  former  Congresses,  the  French  law  of  June  13, 
1866,  in  accordance  with  which  the  standard  of  silk  is  represented  by  the  mean 
weight  expressed  in  grammes  of  a  small  skein  of  500  metres,  the  sample  being 
made  upon  20  small  skeins  of  the  same  length. 

'•'  This  legal  standard  has  remained  a  dead  letter." 

Contrast  this  experience  with  the  expectations  of  the  pro- 
metric  witnesses  before  the  House  Committee  on  Coinage,  Weights 
and  Measures,  that  our  law  will  effect  the  transformation  in  from 
three  to  five  years. 

The  secretary  also  read  from  a  former  opinion  of  M.  De  Pacher, 
as  follows : 

"  It  is  certain  that  yarns  divided  and  numbered  after  the  metric  system  will  be 
unsalable  in  the  greater  part  of  European  markets  as  long  as  it  is  permissible  to 
buy  or  sell  yarns  divided  according  to  the  old  systems  to  which  many  generations 
have  been  accustomed." 

Said  the  English  delegate,  Mr.  Brigstocke : 

"  The  international  unification  of  the  numbering  of  yarns  based  on  the  metric 
system,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  English  Government,  is  not,  under  the 
present  circumstances,  acceptable  with  us,  and  I  should  add  that  this  opinion  is 
participated  in  almost  unanimously  by  the  English  spinners  themselves." 

Contrast  this  with  the  opinion  of  so  many  (including  Lord 
Kelvin),  that  if  we  will  only  jump  into  this  bottomless  pit  England 
\vill  be  sure  to  follow. 


THE  GENERAL  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN 

FRANCE. 

From  M.  Laurence  V.  Benet,  artillery  engineer  for  Hotch- 
kiss  &  Cie.,  of  Paris,  I  have  the  following: 

"  Outside  of  Paris,  and  the  other  large  cities  in  France,  the  trades-people  *  con- 
sistently violate  the  law  by  using  the  old  measures,  the  only  exception  being  the 
locksmiths,  bellhangers,  etc. 

"  My  experience  has  been,  that  every  Frenchman,  when  questioned,  will  start 
out  by  saying  that  the  metric  system  is  universally  used,  and  is  giving  perfect 
satisfaction,  but  when  pressed  closely  will  readily  admit  that  among  the  lower 
classes,  the  old  weights  and  measures  still  persist." 

From  M.  L.  H.  de  'L'Espee,  a  French  mining  engineer  and  be- 
liever in  the  metric  system  who  is  now  connected  with  the  National 
Association  of  Manufacturers,  I  have  the  following : 

"  Of  course,  there  is  everywhere  to  be  found  a  spirit  of  routine, 
and  perhaps  stronger  in  France  than  anywhere  else.  People  who 
have  been  used  to  certain  standards  during  their  whole  life,  are 
not  willing  to  change  them  at  once.  There  is  no  doubt  that  old 
measuring  standards  are  still  largely  in  use  in  many  parts  of 
France. 

"  In  the  matter  of  length  measurements,  the  size  of  a  man  will 
be  expressed  in  pieds  (feet)  of tener  than  in  metres,  in  the  familiar 
language.  The  aune  (1.20  metre)  is  still  often  used  in  measuring 
dry  goods,  in  some  provinces.  The  lieue  (league)  of  4  kilometres  is 
often  spoken  of  in  computing  distances.  As  to  the  mille  marin  or 
noeud  (knot),  the  predominance  of  England  in  all  matters  per- 
taining to  navigation  is  sufficient  explanation  for  its  retention  in 
naval  vocabulary. 

"  In  the  matter  of  area  measurements,  the  arpent,  equal  to  about 
^  hectare,  is  still  largely  used.  However,  its  value  is  variable  in 
the  different  provinces,  which  goes  to  show  the  usefulness  of  the 
hectare  provided  by  the  metric  system.  In  Lorraine,  the  jour  (one 
man's  day  work)  is  still  the  predominant  unit  in  farm  measure- 
ments. 

*  I  infer  that  this  word  refers  to  mechanics  and  not  to  merchants. 


34  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

"  For  grain  measurement,  the  bushel  (boisseau)  is  still  used  in 
many  provinces.  For  liquid  measurements,  there  is  still  an  endless 
variety  of  standards,  the  piece  of  228  litres  and  the  tonneau  of 
4  pieces  in  the  Bordeaux  region ;  the  f  euillette  of  105  litres  in  Bur- 
gundy; the  mesure  of  44  litres  in  Lorraine.  Wine  crops  in  Lor- 
raine will  invariably  be  computed  in  so  many  mesures  par  jour. 
Even  in  Paris  wine  is  often  retailed  by  the  setier. 

"  For  lumber  and  firewood  measurements,  the  metric  stere  has 
never  proved  a  favorite.  Firewood  is  almost  exclusively  sold  by 
the  cord,  and  lumber  is  usually  sold  by  the  dozen  of  solives, 
madriers  or  planches,  each  of  these  denominations  having  fixed 
sizes  as  to  length,  width  and  thickness." 

Following  are  extracts  from  a  letter  by  an  American  engi- 
neer who  has  lived  in  Paris  for  some  years  and  whose  experience  in 
Continental  Europe  dates  from  1889.  He  is  a  graduate  of  the 
Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology,  and  occupies  a  leading 
position ;  but  his  connections  are  such  that  he  desires  that  his  name 
be  not  mentioned. 

"  It  is  rather  singular  that  the  decimal  division  and  multiplica- 
tion of  the  metre  or  kilogramme  do  not  appear  to  suit  various  in- 
dustries for  widely  different  reasons.  In  order  to  give  you  a  few 
examples  of  this  I  have  extracted  some  paragraphs  from  a  well- 
known  and  very  useful  handbook  in  the  French  language,  entitled 
Formulaire  de  TElectricien,  edited  by  M.  Hospitalier,  who  happens 
to  be  an  authority  on  the  subject  we  are  now  discussing. 

"  The  most  striking  example  and  one  which  appears  to  provoke 
the  wrath  of  M.  Hospitalier  is  the  Cheval-vapeur  corresponding  to 
the  English  horse-power.  You  will  see  that  he  considers  the 
cheval-vapeur  an  empirical  unit.  M.  Hospitalier's  contention  is 
that  the  Poncelet  or  100  kilogrammetres  per  second,  the  metric 
and  decimal  unit  of  power  and  not  the  cheval-vapeur  or  75  kilo- 
grammetres per  second,  should  be  adopted.  You  will  see  that 
M.  Hospitalier  hoped  to  see  this  logically  defined  unit  accepted 
by  the  International  Congress  of  1900.  As  he  states,  routine  got 
the  better  of  logic  in  the  discussion,  and  the  cheval-vapeur  obtained 
the  sanction  of  the  Congress.* 

"  The    other    extracts    concerning    Elasticite    and    Unite    de 

*  Fancy  changing  the  value  of  the  horse-power  at  this  late  date !  The  prop- 
osition is  no  more  absurd  than  the  proposition  to  change  other  established  units, 
but  it  should  assist  engineers  in  classifying  this  movement  as  a  simple  fad. 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  35 

Clialeur  refer  to  the  confusion  resulting  from  the  use  of  several  in- 
dustrial units.  I  have  also  extracted  the  paragraphs  on  Unite  de 
Longueur  and  Unite  de  Masse  since  they  very  clearly  set  forth  the 
difference  between  the  theoretical  metric  units  of  length  and  mass 
and  the  arbitrary  standards  on  which  the  metric  system  is  based. 

"  I  send  you,  by  this  same  mail  a  copy  of  Le  Matin ,  a  Paris 
morning  paper  of  good  standing.  If  you  will  refer  to  the  blue 
pencil  marks  you  will  probably  be  surprised  to  find  so  many  in- 
dustrial units  of  measure  which  are  neither  decimal  nor  metric. 

"  Of  course,  when  it  comes  to  making  out  a  bill  or  any  business 
document  where  the  amounts  of  material  are  specified,  it  is  neces- 
sary, according  to  French  law,  to  use  the  units  of  the  metric  system 
in  conveying  this  information.  If  this  is  not  done  you  run  the  risk 
of  a  fine. 

"  On  page  5  under  the  heading  Bulletin  Commercial  du  5 
Janvier,  you  will  find  short  paragraphs  on  the  trade  in  various 
merchandise.  In  the  paragraph  Spirit ueux  you  will  find  the  stock 
is  11,800  pipes  and  that  the  sales  were  535  pipes.  The  pipe  is,  of 
course,  an  English  measure,  equivalent  to  105  gallons.  When- 
ever it  is  necessary  to  refer  to  its  contents  for  the  purpose  of  billing 
or  measuring,  the  litre  measure  is  of  course  employed. 

u  In  the  paragraph  Sucres  the  trade  unit  is  the  sac,  and  under 
the  heading  Depeches  Commerciales,  you  will  find  the  sales  of 
cotton  given  in  balles,  and  of  coffee  in  sacs.  It  is  more  than  prob- 
able that  the  sacs  of  sugar  and  of  coffee  do  not  contain  the  same 
number  of  kilogrammes  of  material  any  more  than  they  contain 
the  same  number  of  pounds.  They  are  nevertheless  non-decimal 
units  and,  like  many  others  I  could  find,  if  I  had  the  time,  are 
sanctioned  in  French  commercial  affairs.  It  could  not  well  be 
otherwise. 

"  I  received  recently  an  advertisement  of  a  coal  and  wood  mer- 
chant who  classified  his  wood  as  follows : 

Bois  (1)  traits  =  -       -  =  .m  57 


36  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

"  The  industrial  non-decimal  unit  in  this  case  is  the  trait. 
The  stere  is  the  decimal  unit  of  wood  measure  of  the  metric  system, 
equal  to  one  cubic  metre,  and  measures  1.14  metres  in  length  of 
wood  by  0.88  metre  by  1.0  metre.  Consequently  one  trait  refers 
to  the  piece  of  wood  which  is  obtained  by  cutting  the  piece  of  1.14 
metres  into  two  equal  parts.  The  piece  known  as  2  traits  is  ob- 
tained by  cutting  the  1.14  metre  piece  into  three  equal  parts,  etc. 
Although  the  stere  is  the  decimal  unit  of  wood  measure  in  the 
metric  system,  the  manner  of  making  up  the  cubic  metre  clearly 
indicates  that  the  old-fashioned  method  of  cutting  wood  to  a  length 
of  I.ml4  has  not  been  superseded  by  cutting  to  1  metre  lengths. 
The  only  thing  to  do  in  this  case  was  to  make  the  wrood  pile  O.m88 
high  to  obtain  the  cubic  metre  or  stere.  It  seems  to  me  that  this 
is  an  instance  of  adhering  to  an  old  well-established  practice  in 
spite  of  the  supposed  advantages  of  the  decimal  units  of  the  metric 
system.  The  wood  merchant  has  taken  the  precaution  to  give  the 
lengths  of  his  wood  in  metric  measure  O.m57,  O.m38,  etc.,  probably 
to  avoid  the  fine. 

"  If  you  will  refer  to  page  6  of  the  Maiin,  you  will  find  sev- 
eral advertisements  of  wine  dealers  or  producers.  Four  of  them  re- 
fer to  the  piece  and  only  one  gives  the  contents,  stating  that  his 
piece  contains  22  8  litres.  Three  offer  their  wine  in  quantities  of  109, 
215,  218  and  228  litres;  the  first  figure  representing  the  demie- 
piece  and  the  other  three  figures  representing  the  piece,  the  con- 
tents of  which  varies  throughout  France,  and  which  is  fixed  in 
certain  territories  only.  That  is,  a  piece  of  Bordeaux  would  con- 
tain (according  to  law)  a  certain  number  of  litres  and  a  piece 
of  Burgogne  contains  another  number  of  litres.  The  content 
is  evidently  measured  in  litres,  but  these  units  of  demie-piece 
and  piece  may  be  considered  as  non-decimal  industrial  units  of 
liquid  measure. 

"  Since  writing  the  above  I  have  visited  one  of  my  friends  in 
the  country,  about  one  hour's  ride  on  the  railway  from  Paris.  I 
find  the  following  units  in  current  use  in  this  market  town. 

"  The  setier  containing  156  litres  is  used  for  the  sale  of  agri- 
cultural product,  as  grain,  potatoes,  etc. ;  the  minot,  equal  to  -|  mine 
or  39  i  litres,  for  the  sale  of  apples ;  the  quarteron  for  the  sale  of 
eggs  or  nuts,  equal  to  26  of  each ;  the  f  euillette  of  wine,  containing 
135  litres.  For  sale  of  land  the  non-metric  units  of  perche  and 
arpent  are  still  used.  Land  is  also  measured  in  journaux  (plural), 
journal  (singular),  non-decimal  industrial  units  of  land  measure. 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  37 

These  words  are  used  in  the  printed  notices  of  sales  posted  up  by 
the  Notaries  Public,  and  are  always  followed  by  the  content  in 
metric  measure.  I  was  shown  some  recent  catalogues  of  brushes 
In  which  everything  was  sold  by  the  ligne,  the  pouce  and  the 
douzaine.  For  that  matter  many  things  are  sold  by  the  dozen  and 
gross  in  France  and  not  by  dizaines  or  10's. 

kk  If  you  will  refer  to  stock  exchange  quotations  in  the  Matin 
you  will  find  a  curious  condition  of  affairs  which  can  be  easily 
explained.  At  bottom  of  page  3  under  the  heading  Change  you 
will  find  all  values  given  in  whole  numbers  and  fractions,  as  ^,  ^ 
•J,  TV  and  ^V  Ditto  for  the  New  York  and  Chicago  quotations  in 
the  same  column.  On  page  5  after  the  heading  Cloture  des 
Bourses  Europeenes,  you  will  find  a  mix-up  of  these  fractional 
parts  and  decimals.  One  strange  example  is  the  "  Exter  Espag- 
nols  "  quoted  at  86f  at  Bruxelles.  This  same  value  under  the 
heading  Bourse  de  Paris  (Kentes  Etrangeres)  is  quoted  87.95  and 
88.02,  that  is,  decimally.  Evidently  these  are  matters  of  custom 
but  it  goes  to  show  that  there  is  no  great  difference  in  the  use  of 
fractional  or  decimal  values,  since  both  are  found  indiscriminately 
on  the  same  page. 

"  I  enclose  a  paragraph  which  I  have  torn  out  of  Le  Temps 
for  December  23,  1902,  relative  to  one  of  the  proposed  types  of 
French  cruisers.  You  will  see  that  the  maximum  speed  of  the 
cruiser  is  expressed  in  knots,  and  the  maximum  possible  cruising 
distance,  in  sea-miles.* 

"  I  have  given  you  examples  of  a  number  of  non-decimal  in- 
dustrial units  with  names  which  are,  of  course,  not  found  in  the 
terminology  of  the  metric  system  of  measures  and  weights.  They 
are  evidently  old  measures  and  old  names  and  their  values  are  ex- 
pressed, whenever  necessary  (for  special  reasons  to  comply  with  the 
law  on  the  obligatory  use  of  the  metric  system)  in  the  units  of  the 
metric  system.  Others  are  decimal  and  metric,  but  retain  the  old 
names  for  the  industrial  unit,  as  quintal  for  example,  and  not  one  of 
the  series  of  prefixes  characterizing  the  metric  units  as  deca,  hecto, 
kilo,  myria,  etc.  Other  units  mentioned  are  supposed  to  be  obso- 

*  Following  is  the  paragraph  in  question :  "  Le  cuirasse  type  Patrie,  on  le  sait,  a 
une  longueur  de  133  m.  80,  une  largeur  de  24  m.  25  et  un  tirant  d'eau  de  8  m.  376, 
avec  un  deplacement  de  14,865  tonnes.  Sa  vitesse  maxima  est  de  18  noeuds,  et  sa 
provision  de  charbon,  qui  peut-etre  portee  a  1,825  tonnes,  lui  donne  une  distance 
franchissable  de  1,880  milles  a  la  vitesse  maxima."  Note  that  this  is  a  govern- 
ment, not  a  merchant  ship. 


38  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

lete  or  prohibited  by  law.  All  this  tends  to  show  that  certain  coin- 
promises  have  been  made  and  that  old  industrial  non-decimal  units 
are  respected  in  France,  although  their  exact  values  are  expressed 
in  metric  units  whenever  necessary.  This  is  the  situation  some 
65  years45  after  the  adoption  and  use  of  the  metric  system  was 
voted  obligatory,  and  rather  tends  to  show  the  difficulty  exper- 
ienced in  introducing  a  new  system  of  measures  and  weigths." 

*  The  system  was  originally  adopted  in  1793.  In  1812  this  law  was  repealed, 
but  was  reenacted  in  1837,  and  took  effect  in  1840.  During  the  interval  1812- 
1840  the  system  remained  the  "  legal  system,"  but  its  use  was  not  obligatory. 


PERSISTENCE    OF    OLD    UNITS    IN   GERMAN 
MECHANICAL  INDUSTRIES. 

In  the  American  Machinist  for  May  3,  1900,  is  an  article  by 
Mr.  Henry  Hess,  of  Berlin,  Germany,  on  metric  screw  threads. 
Mr.  Hess  is  a  personal  friend  and  an  accomplished  engineer,  a 
fact  which  is  attested  by  his  position.  He  was  formerly  with 
the  Niles  Tool  Works  of  Hamilton,  Ohio,  and  when  that  corpora- 
tion established  its  great  branch  works  in  Berlin,  under  the  name 
of  the  German  Niles  Works,  he  was  selected  to  go  to  Germany, 
in  order  to  carry  American  practice  and  American  methods  there, 
and  form  a  connecting  link  between  the  two  companies.  Please 
remember  that  he  is  actively  engaged  in  machine  construction; 
not  in  a  business  capacity,  but  as  a  designer  and  constructor,  and 
he  knows  the  facts  from  the  inside. 

Mr.  Hess  writes  (italics  mine) : 

"  To  work  with  both  millimetres  and  inches  in  the  same  shop,  and  not  infre- 
quently on  different  portions  of  a  single  piece,  is  too  illogical  an  arrangement  to 
maintain  itself.  A  further  complication  is  brought  about  by  the  fact  that, 
though  like  in  name,  an  inch  is  a  widely  varying  quantity  in  different  sections.  In 
Germany  alone  there  are  at  least  half  a  dozen,  of  which  two,  the  Rhenish  and  the 
English,  are  in  such  very  general  use  as  to  cause  great  confusion." 

I  have  a  personal  letter  from  Mr.  Hess  dated  at  the1  German 
Niles  Works,  September  15,  1902,  from  which  I  quote  the  follow- 
ing (italics  mine) : 

"It  is  quite  true  that  the  great  majority  of  these  [old  provincial  inches]  are 
no  longer  in  use;  still  it  is  to-day  necessary  to  be  very  careful  in  using  rules 
that  are  purchasable  in  every  hardware  store,  to  make  sure  whether  the  inches 
that  are  given  on  the  reversed  side  are  Rhenish  or  English  inches. 

"  Nearly  universally  the  carpenters  and,  other  building  mechanics  use  the  Rhenish 
inch,  and  we  have  occasionally  found  that  men  in  OUT  shops  have  made  use  of 
their  private  Rhenish  foot-rules. 

"  As  to  this  matter  in  France  I  cannot  tell  you  very  definitely,  but  I  believe 
that  similar  conditions  exist  there,  though  not  to  as  great  an  extent." 

At  my  request  Mr.  Hess  has  sent  me  a  collection  of  these 
German-made  scales,  which,  in  addition  to  the  sacred  millimetre, 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 


give  upon  their  various  edges  the  English,  the  Khenish,  and  the 
Trench  inch,  the  latter  measuring  37  to  the  metre,  as  already  ex- 


M'M|i|!|i  M  I'l'I'MIHilMJI'lU'l'I'l'I'I'I'MI'I'l1!'!' 

O    G  «j    b  "I  O  X~N 


i.n.,1..  i , ,  i.  Pig    j , ,!,,  I  pi , , , , , ,  t ,,  ,t|s ,,,,,, 


American  Machinist, 


i  6     i  7     i  8     i  9 

I    !    .    !   .   I    II    .    I    I   ..    .    ,    I    !    I    t    .   I   I   .    .    I  I    .  1  I    I   I   II  I    I    I    I    I   i    I 


A   COLLECTJON  OF   INCHES. 


plained.,  One  of  these  scales  is  shown  in  the  illustration.  In 
an  accompanying  letter,  after  saying  that  the  purchase  was  made 
"  in  one  of  the  larger  retail  hardware  shops  in  Berlin,  located  in 
the  manufacturing  district/7  Mr.  Hess  goes  on  to  say : 

"  In  talking  with  the  proprietor,  I  learned  that  practically  all  of  the  small  trades- 
men* with  whom  he  has  to  deal  still  stick  to  the  use  of  the  inch,  and  when  they  want 
to  sell  them  anything  according  to  metres,  they  are  informed  that  they  are  used 
to  the  inch  and  foot  and  do  not  wish  to  be  bothered  with  the  metre." 

To  understand  the  full  force  of  this  it  must  be  remembered  that 
to  sell  goods  by  other  than  metric  measures  in  Germany  is  a  fin- 
able offence,  and  Mr.  Hess's  informant  has,  in  fact,  paid  such  fines 
for  acceding  to  his  customers'  demands. 

*  Mr.  Hess  informs  me  that  by  this  word  he  means  mechanics,  not  merchants. 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  41 

"We  have  also  the  testimony  of  Mr.  J.  H.  Linnard,  a  naval 
architect  of  the  Navy  Department,  whose  testimony  before  the 
House  committee  is  referred  to  at  length  farther  on.  I  have  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Linnard  dated  at  Washington,  September  5,  1902, 
in  which,  after  saying,  "  I  recently  made  a  short  trip  to  Ger- 
many," he  goes  on  to  say: 

"The  visit  I  made  to  Germany  was  in  connection  with  visits  to  ship-building 
yards,  and  I  did  not  come  in  contact  with  other  merchants  or  manufacturers.  I 
made  inquiry,  however,  in  the  ship-building  yards  whether  the  use  of  the  metric 
system  was  universal  in  Germany.  I  found  that  in  all  government  work  it  was 
universal,  but  that  two  yards,  one  of  considerable  importance  at  Flensburg,  and 
one  at  Hamburg,  still  use  the  English  system  of  measurement  for  their  ship 
work." 

At  the  hearings  of  the  House  committee  Prof.  Elihu  Thomp- 
son, in  the  course  of  his  pro-metric  testimony,  read  in  abstract 
a  letter  from  Mr.  A.  H.  Moore  (page  4),  saying  : 

n  Speaking  from  practical  experience  of  the  use  of  the  metric  standard  in  Ger- 
many, he  says  that  the  Whitworth  thread  is  in  almost  universal  use  in  Germany 
and  central  Europe.  *  *  *  *  Others  [other  machines]  were  designed  in 
Berlin  and  figured  in  millimetres,  but  in  these  the  drill  and  tap  holes  were  figured 
in  inches.  The  peculiar  reason  for  this  was  that,  no  good  twist  drills  having  milli- 
metre dimensions  were  to  be  had,  while  American  twist  drills  were  very  cheap." 

The  general  use  of  English  pitch  threads  in  Germany  is,  of 
course,  well  known,  but  it  will  do  no  harm  to  take  the  fact  from 
a  metric  advocate's  mouth.  The  discriminating  engineer  will  re- 
call that  English  sized  twist  drills  make  English  sized  holes,  and 
he  will  take  the  use  of  English  sized  screws  and  twist  drills  as  addi- 
tional evidence  that  the  millimetre  has  not  yet  driven  the  inch 
from  German  machine  shops,  and  that  Germany  is  still  in  the 
transition  period. 

In  Zeitschrift  des  Vereines  deutsclier  Ingenieure  for  Septem- 
ber 5,  1903,  may  be  found  the  official  report  of  the  forty-fourth 
general  meeting  of  the  Society  of  German  Engineers,  June  30, 
and  July  1  and  2,  1903.  On  page  1320  of  this  report  may  be 
found  an  action  taken  by  the  Society  on  Gas  Pipe  Threads 
wherein  may  be  found  the  following: 

"  The  following  rules  and  figures  for  wrought  iron,  gas  and  water  pipes 
have  been  presented  by  a  committee  consisting  of  representatives  of  the 
Society  of  German  Engineers,  the  Society  of  German  Gas  and  Waterworks 
Industries,  The  Society  for  Central  Heating  and  the  Syndicate  of  Tube 
Manufacturers  : 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 


Trade  designation 
of  the  pipe  according  to 
inside  diameter. 
English  inches. 

Outside  diameter 
of  pipe  and  thread. 
Millimeters. 

Number  of  threads 
per  English  inch. 

Diameter  at 
the  root  of  the  thread. 
Millimeters. 

i 

13 

19 

11.3 

1 

16.5 

19 

14.8 

i 

20.5 

14 

18.2 

I 

23 

14 

20.7 

* 

26.5 

14 

23.2 

1 

33 

11 

30 

1$ 

42 

11 

39 

U 

48 

11 

45 

If 

52 

11 

49 

2 

59 

11 

56 

3* 

70 

11 

67 

24 

76 

11 

73 

3 

89 

11 

86 

3* 

101.5 

11 

98.5 

4^ 

114 

11 

111 

A  NEW  GERMAN  PIPE  AND  PIPE  THREAD  STANDARD.* 

"  In  conformity  with  the  Council  the  general  meeting  accepted  the  pro- 
posals of  the  committee." 

And  so  this  delightful  hodge  podge  of  inches  and  millimeters 
is  the  best  pipe  and  thread  standard  which  the  Society  of  Ger- 
man Engineers  can  evolve  in  this  year  of  grace,  1903.  The  tech- 
nical reader  will  of  course  'recognize  it  as  little  more  than  the 
Whitworth  standard  which  the  German  Engineers  thus  acknowl- 
edge they  cannot  change. 

From  Mr.  R.  T.  Wingo,  of  the  Browne  and  Sharpe  Manu- 
facturing Company,  I  have  the  following: 

"  My  experience  with  the  metric  system  in  Europe  dates  from  April, 
1893,  to  August,  1895,  while  I  was  connected  with  one  of  the  best  known 
machine  shops  in  Germany,  as  a  mechanical  engineer,  and  during  that 
time  I  had  considerable  practical  experience  with  the  metric  system  in 
engineering.  Before  going  to  Europe  I  had  been  led  to  believe  that  the 
European  countries  were  using  the  metric  system  entirely,  but  I  soon 
found  that  such  was  not  the  case,  as  some  of  the  old  systems  are  still 
used.  In  the  larger  machinery  manufacturing  centres  they  have  ac- 
complished the  most  in  the  way  of  using  the  metric  system,  but  even  in 
these  centres  the  people  do  not  confine  themselves  entirely  to  it,  as  fre- 
quent use  is  made  of  the  inch,  foot,  pound,  etc.  In  the  smaller  towns  and 
cities,  and  in  the  repair  shops,  there  is  a  great  confusion  of  systems  aris- 
ing, I  suppose,  from  the  fact  that  there  are  so  many  repairs  that  must  be 


*  The  table  above  is  complete.     The  original  contains  no  columns  of 
metric  equivalents  for  the  English  dimension  columns. 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  4:3 

made  on  old  machines  that  were  built  according  to  the  old  systems  of 
measurements,  and  I  suppose  that  there  are  still  enough  of  those  old 
machines  in  use  requiring  repairs  to  keep  up  the  old  systems  of  measure- 
ments in  this  one  case  for  an  indefinite  time." 

The  letter  from  M.  Benet,  of  Paris,  from  which  extracts  were 
given  in  the  previous  section  contains  the  following: 

"  In  my  own  experience,  I  recently  had  to  order  a  quantity  of  hardened 
steel  balls  from  the  Waffenfabriken  at  Berlin  in  metric  Germany.  The 
sizes  of  these  balls  were  given  in  |,  £,  •£,  and  ^  inch,  etc.,  and  the  balls 
delivered  to  me  accurately  gauged  to  English,  and  not  to  metric  dimen- 
sions. To  cap  the  climax,  the  quotations  up  to  Winch  were  so  much  per 
gross,  after  that  so  much  per  hundred." 

Finally,  recall  Mr.  Patterson's  letter,  which  has  already  been 
given  in  correction  of  Mr.  Stratton's  mistake.  While  this  letter 
uses  the  word  pipe  only,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  National  Tube  Com- 
pany have  a  large  trade  in  France  and  Germany  in  both  boiler 
tubes  and  pipe,  which,  as  Mr.  Patterson's  letter  shows,  are  made 
to  English  dimensions.  This  can  only  be  interpreted  as  meaning 
that  a  good  deal  of  boiler  and  pipe  work  is  done  in  those  countries 
on  the  inch  basis. 

Do  not  forget  that  this  condition  of  things  obtains  twenty-eight 
years  after  the  system  was  made  compulsory  in  Germany. 

Our  manufacturing  interests  and  methods  are  immensely  more 
developed  than  those  of  Germany  twenty-eight  years  ago,  with 
a  corresponding  increase  of  difficulty  in  changing,  and  yet,  with 
the  change  incomplete,  in  Germany  after  twenty-eight  years, 
these  people  go  to  Washington  and  give  it  as  their  opinion  that 
with  us,  and  without  compulsion,  three  to  five  years  will  do  it  all. 
We  are  told  that  we  have  three  kinds  of  gallons  and  two  kinds  of 
pounds,  and  must  therefore  add  the  litre  and  the  kilogram  to  the 
list,  but  how  does  our  situation  compare  with  10  ells  and  half  a 
dozen  inches? 

In  the  face  of  such  facts  as  these  what  shall  be  said  of  such  tes- 
timony as  that  of  Mr.  G.  L.  Cabot  (page  135),  that  "  in  the  case 
of  Germany  and  Austria  only  between  two  and  three  years  were 
required  to  make  the  complete  change,  and  with  highly  satisfac- 
tory results  "  ?  What  shall  be  said  of  the  testimony  of  numer- 
ous United  States  consuls  quoted  at  such  length  by  Mr.  Stratton 
(pages  163,  164)?  A  consul  sees  that  the  dry  goods  merchants 
have  changed  the  tacks  upon  their  counters  with  which  they 
measure  cloth  and  ribbon,  that  the  grocers  have  metric  weights 


4:4  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

alongside  their  balances,  and  that  invoices  and  bills  of  lading  are 
made  out  in  metres  and  kilogrammes,  and  he  concludes  that  the 
metric  system  is  in  universal  use.  He  can  know  nothing  of  the 
production  side  of  the  matter,  and  a  native  of  France  or  Germany 
in  many  walks  of  life  need  know  no  more.  It  is,  however,  on  such 
evidence  as  this  that  this  case  largely  rests. 

Moreover,  what  shall  be  said  of  such  negative  testimony  as 
that  of  Mr.  Henning  (page  600,  vol.  xviii.,  of  the  Transactions 
of  the  American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers) :  "  I  have 
been  abroad  some,,  but  I  have  never  heard  of  the  English  inch 
being  used  as  a  standard  in  any  of  the  countries  I  have  visited, 
except,  of  course,  England."  As  one  who  is  accustomed  to  weigh 
scientific  data,  Mr.  Henning  will  be  the  first  to  see  that,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  others  find  inches  in  use  everywhere,  his  own 
failure  to  find  them  counts  for  nothing. 


THE  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  SCANDINAVIA. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Engineers'  Society  of  Western 
New  York  for  1902,  Mr.  Chas.  H.  Tutton  read  a  paper  upon 
this  subject,  and  in  discussing  the  paper,  Mr.  S.  M.  Kielland,  a 
native  of  Norway,  said: 

"  When  I  went  over  to  Norway,  Sweden  and  Denmark,  a  few  years  ago, 
after  having  been  away  about  twenty-five  years,  I  found  the  common  or 
old  measures  as  well  as  the  metric  measures  in  use  by  the  common  people, 
especially  amongst  the  traders  and  peasantry.  The  most  of  their  trade 
and  dealing  is  done  by  the  old  system  the  same  as  they  used  to  do  before 
the  metric  system  was  adopted.  Of  course,. if  we  want  these  difficulties 
and  complications  by  the  use  of  two  or  more  systems  which  Mr.  Tutton 
has  so  well  pointed  out,  we  can  have  them  by  making  use  of  the  metric 
system  compulsory  in  the  United  States." 


THE  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  GREECE. 

In  the  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  d*  Encouragement  pour  £  Industrie 
Nationale  for  June  30,  1893,  is  an  extended  article  entitled  La 
Convention  du  Metre  et  le  Bureau  International  des  Poids  et 
Mesures.  The  article  has  several  appendices,  one  of  which  is  a 
"  Resume  of  Legislation  Relative  to  Weights  and  Measures/'  from 
which  are  taken  the  following  quotations  relative  to  the  persist- 
ence of  old  units  in  Greece,  Turkey,  Egypt  and  Central  Amer- 
ica.* Coming,  as  this  testimony  does,  from  the  metric  head- 
quarters of  the  world,  the  metric  advocates  can  scarcely  question 
its  accuracy: 

"The  metric  system  was  made  optional  (in  Greece),  by  a  royal  decree 
of  1836.  The  metric  units  have  since  then  been  used  in  the  acts  of  the 
government  at  least  for  lineal  ('  itinerary')  and  superficial  measurements, 
but  among  the  people  the  decree  has  remained  a  dead  letter.  At  various 
times  since,  the  Greek  government  has  discussed  the  advisability  of  making 
the  system  obligatory,  but  thus  far  it  has  retreated  before  the  resistance 
of  the  rural  population." 


*  The  last  given  for  convenience  of  classification  in  the  section  The 
Persistence  of  Old  Units  in  other  Spanish  American  countries. 


THE  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  TURKEY.* 

"  A  law  of  the  year  1886  rendered  the  metric  system  obligatory 
at  Constantinople  after  an  interval  of  five  years.  In  conse- 
quence of  this  law  the  old  measures  were  confiscated  and 
destroyed  in  the  capital,  but  no  attempt  was  made  to  introduce 
the  new  system  in  the  provinces.  At  Constantinople  even  the 
measures  of  the  old  system  reappeared  little  by  little,  and  in  spite 
of  an  energetic  attempt  in  favor  of  the  metric  system  the  Council 
of  State,  recognizing  that  it  was  impossible  to  use  rigor,  author- 
ized anew  the  employment  of  the  old  Turkish  system.  At  the 
present  time  the  two  systems  are  optional/' 

Thus  it  appears  that  this  task,  upon  which  our  metric  advocates 
would  have  our  government  enter  so  lightly,  is  one  before  which 
the  despotic  government  of  Turkey  was  compelled  to  confess 
defeat. 

*  From  the  same  source  as  the  sections  on  Greece  and  Egypt. 


THE  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  THE  TEEATY 
PORTS  OF  CHINA. 

The  following  letter  from  Mr.  L.  Wing,  Chinese  Vice-Consul  at 
New  York,  is  a  reply  to  a  letter  of  mine  asking  the  facts  about 
the  use  of  the  metric  system  in  the  treaty  ports  of  China.  While 
the  letter  does  not  mention  the  treaty  ports,  it  relates  to  them 
and  to  nothing  else,  because  the  letter  to  which  it  is  an  answer 
asked  about  nothing  else. 

"  I  can  only  state  to  my  knowledge  that  the  metric  system  is  not  used 
so  much  as  it  is  supposed.  Among  our  people  the  Chinese  weight  and 
measure  are  used;  among  the  foreigners  the  English  weight  and  measure, 
but  when  natives  and  foreigners  trade  with  each  other  the  Chinese 
standard  of  measurement  is  used  if  the  merchandise  is  Chinese  and  vice 
versa.  The  tariff  schedule  is  based  on  the  Chinese  standards  of  weight 
and  measurement." 


THE  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  JAPAN. 

At  the  discussion  of  the  Mechanical  Engineers  Mr.  F.  H.' 
Colvin  gave  the  result  of  an  examination  of  recent  volumes  of 
the  government  publication  Commercial  Relations.  Regarding 
Japan  his  findings  from  the  reports  of  an  American  consul  in 
Japan  were : 

"  But  Japan  leads  them  all  in  mixing  up  custom  and  science,  the  past 
and  the  future  (perhaps).  The  official  table  of  imports  into  Yokohama 
gives  a  choice  collection  of  piculs,  kin,  milles,  tons,  square  yards,  gallons, 
litres,  square  feet,  gross,  sho,  etc.,  with  piculs  and  kins  in  the  lead,  and 
litres  notable  by  their  scarcity. 

'•  Building  sites  are  also  mentioned  as  being  rented  for  from  5  to  8 
cents"  per  'tsubo,'  which  equals  36  square  feet.  No  '  centiare '  about  this. 

"  The  consul  also  says :  '  The  Japanese  have  not  abandoned  their  old 
weights  and  measures  in  favor  of  the  metric  system  but  have  legalized 
the  employment  of  the  two  side  by  side  with  the  proviso  that  the  Japanese 
weights  shall  be  taken  as  the  standard.  The  metric  system  has  not  come 
into  general  use.  The  engineers,  mechanics  and  artisans  of  all  kinds  use 
the  native  measurements  in  preference.'  " 

This  quotation  from  the  American  Consul  was  submitted 
to  Mr.  Sadazuchi  Uchida,  Japanese  Consul  General,  New  York, 
with  a  request  for  information  regarding  the  accuracy  of  the 
statements,  and  for  such  further  information  as  might  be  per- 
tinent. The  following  is  an  extract  from  his  reply : 

"  As  to  the  system  of  weights  and  measures  used  in  Japan  the  state- 
ment of  your  consul  seems  to  be  generally  correct. 

"  By  a  law  passed  in  March,  1891,  shaku  was  determined  as  the  unit  of 
measure  and  kwan  as  the  unit  of  weight,  definitions  being  given  to  both 
these  units.  Although  they  had  been  in  use  for  many  years  past  they 
were  not  considered  the  units,  and  the  making  of  these  instruments  was 
not  strictly  regulated  by  law  until  that  year.  The  same  law  fixed  the 
ratio  of  shaku  and  kwan  to  the  metric  system  and  vice  versa,  legalizing 
the  use  of  the  metric  system. 

"  But  in  the  ordinary  trade  and  industries  our  own  weights  and  meas- 
ures are  commonly  used  instead  of  the  metric  system,  although  in  the 
army  and  navy  they  generally  use  the  English  or  metric  system. 

"  In  our  government  statistical  publications  anything  other  than  our 
own  weights  and  measures  is  very  rarely  used. 


50  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

"  In  our  tariff  schedules  specific  duties  are  mostly  fixed  by  our  own 
weights  and  measures,  but  some  articles  pay  duties  by  gallons,  feet,  yards, 
litres,  tons,  etc." 

An  examination  of  the  Japanese  tariff  schedule  published  by 
the  Philadelphia  Commercial  Museum,  and  brought  down  to 
April  1,  1903,  discloses  a  total  of  nine  items  in  which  the  duties 
are  levied  in  metric  units,  which  items  relate  exclusively  to 
alcohol,  tinctures,  wine,  spirits  and  malt  liquors.  There  are  also 
five  additional  items  in  which  the  duties  are  levied  by  the  case, 
but  in  which  the  size  of  the  bottles  is  specified  in  litres.  In  the 
same  schedule  fifty-three  items  appear  in  which  the  duties  are 
levied  by  the  square  yard.  Neither  meter  nor  kilogram  appear 
in  the  schedule.  The  large  majority  of  the  specific  duties  are 
levied  per  kin  or  per  100  kin,  the  value  of  the  kin  being  1,325 
pounds. 

~No  better  illustration  of  the  simple  credulity  with  which  the 
metric  advocates  accept  any  statement  favorable  to  their  system 
could  be  given  than  the  following  from  The  Coming  of  Hie  Kilo- 
gram by  Mr.  H.  O.  Arnold-Foster  (page  122) : 

"  It  [the  list  of  metric  countries]  contains  the  names  not  only  of  great 
and  highly  civilized  countries  but  of  countries  that  can  hardly  be  called 
civilized,  such  as  Turkey;  it  contains  the  name  of  Japan,  the  populous  and 
busy  country,  etc." 


THE  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  EGYPT.* 

"  A  decree  of  the  year  1875  introduced  the  metric  system, 
in  an  optional  way,  in  all  the  territory  of  Egypt.  In  1892 
further  progress  was  accomplished  by  requiring  the  use  of  the 
system  in  all  transactions  of  the  government  with  individuals. 
The  old  agrarian  measures  have  been  preserved  and  the  old  units 
of  mass  are  still  in  current  use  in  commerce.  The  metric  system 
is  taught  in  the  state  schools." 

*  From  the  same  source  as  the  sections  on  Greece  and  Turkey. 


THE  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  THE 
PHILIPPINE  ISLANDS. 

The  following  are  extracts  from  two  letters  from  Rev.  George 
D.  Rice,  who  is  chaplain  of  an  American  regiment  in  the  Philippines: 

In  nearly  every  business  house,  manufacturing  establishment  and  govern- 
ment institution  here,  scales  are  used  with  pounds  on  one .  side  of  the  bal- 
ancing arm  and  kilos  on  the  other. 

I  find  that  this  state  exists  everywhere  in  the  islands.  This  is  necessary 
because  sometimes  the  metric  system  is  required.  The  little  railway  of 


i  i  n 

01234 
1 

1 

Ai 

1 

5789 
ro.                    2 

1 
Ai 

1     12    13     1 

ro. 

4 
3 

16     17     18     19 
Arro.             4    Arro. 

SCALE  BEAM  IN  COMMON  USE  IN  THE  PHILIPPINE  ISLANDS. 

Luzon  will  not  receive  goods  unless  the  invoices  are  given  with  weights  in 
kilos. 

Yesterday  I  visited  the  Chinese  scale  makers  of  Manila.  They  have  quite 
extensive  works.  I  found  them  making  most  of  the  scales  as  per  enclosure 
[a  sketch  of  a  scale  beam,  reproduced  herewith].  The  balance  beam  is 
marked  with  American  pounds  and  with  Spanish  characters.  There  are 
five  American  pounds  to  each  Spanish  arro.  These  scales  are  cheap  and  ex- 
tensively used  in  the  shops,  stores  and  plantations  of  the  islands. 

The  reader  will  not  fail  to  note  the  unconscious  sarcasm  of  the 
word  "  sometimes."  It  is  perhaps  the  best  bon  mot  which  this  in- 
quiry has  developed. 


THE  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  SPAIN. 

From  Mr.  John  H.  Ball,  of  Barcelona,  Spain,  manufacturer 
of  machine  tools,  I  have  the  following : 

"  Your  paper  on  the  metric  system  is  at  hand,  and  I  cordially 
agree  with  your  conclusions.  .  .  .  For  the  two  countries 
[England  and  the  United  States]  who  do  more  trade  between  them 
than  all  the  rest  of  the  world  put  together,  to  take  on  the  mixture 
of  the  so-called  metric  countries  would  be  an  absurdity. 

"  Spain  is  included  among  the  countries  whose  legal  weights 
and  measures  follow  the  metric  system.  As  prior  to  the  passing  of 
the  law,  each  province,  and  indeed,  nearly  every  town  of  any  im- 
portance had  its  own  local  scale,  the  unification  of  these  numerous 
and  bewildering  scales  by  the  introduction  of  the  metric  system  to 
displace  the  oldest  measures,  was  a  step  in  the  right  direction.  But 
between  passing  a  law  and  compelling  its  carrying  out,  there  is  a 
wide  gulf  fixed.  Thus  while  the  metric  system  is  universally 
understood,  and  nominally  reigns,  not  more  than  half  the  everyday 
business  transactions  are  carried  out  on  a  metric  basis.  Land  con- 
tinues to  sell  by  the  '  palmo  ?  or  span.  Lineal  and  superficial 
measures  include  the  '  palmo,7  the  i  vara/  or  yard,  which  like 
most  of  the  old  measures  differs  with  every  province,  the  i  cana/ 
about  1-J  metres,  the  '  destre  '  of  from  2.829  metres  to  4.214 
metres.  Oils  and  wines  sell  by  the  '  cuarto,7  '  arroba/  'cantara  ' 
and  several  other  measures ;  cereals  by  '  f anegas  '  and  '  f  er- 
rados  ' ;  coal  and  coke  by  the  '  arroba/  '  quintal '  or  f  tonelada/ 
and  the  last  mentioned  is  the  only  one  of  the  lot  that  is  approxi- 
mately an  exact  metric  measure,  while  there  are  about  20  different 
'  libras/  or  pounds,  in  use,  ranging  from  0.350  kilogram  to  0.579 
kilogram,  each  of  which  is  common  to  its  town  or  province. 

"  The  rule  generally  used  in  the  shops  is  a  many-jointed  fold- 
ing (  metro  '  of  wood,  which  carries  metric  and  English  measures, 
but  there  are  large  numbers  sold  also  of  French  make,  and  which 
carry  the  French  inches  in  addition  to  the  English  and  metric.  In 
regard  to  the  change  from  English  to  metric  measures  proposed  in 


54:  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

the  United  States  and  being  agitated  in  England,  it  surely  would 
be  a  great  pity  to  throw  deliberately  away  the  uniformity  at  pres- 
ent reigning  in  those  countries.  However  great  may  be  the  theo- 
retical advantage  of  the  metric  system,  the  matter  resolves  itself 
entirely  into  one  of  use  or  practice.  After  four  and  a  half  years 
in  a  professedly  metric  country,  the  English  system  is  still  to  me 
the  easier,  owing  to  the  greater  number  of  years  of  practice  I  have 
had  with  it.  After  some  forty  or  more  years  of  metric  system  in 
this  country  the  mixture  is,  after  all  these  years,  an  abominable 
mixture  still,  and  bids  fair  to  continue  so  for  very  many  years 
more. 

"  As  evidencing  the  nuisance  now  caused,  I  may  quote  the  fol- 
lowing: I  recently  bought  a  French  lathe,  constructed  in  Paris, 
and  nominally  of  the  latest  model.  The  'lead  screw  is  4  per  inch, 
the  gearing  cut  to  Brown  &  Sharp  formula,  all  outside  bolts  are 
English  pitch,  but  the  countersunk  screws  in  the  saddle  are 
f  diameter  by  1J  mm.  pitch,  which  cannot  be  cut  by  any  combina- 
tion of  gears  supplied  with  the  lathe,  so  that,  one  being  lost,  I  have 
either  to  make  a  127-tooth  wheel,  or  get  a  special  screw  from  the 
makers  of  the  lathe." 


THE  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  MEXICO. 

The  most  recent  star  example  of  quick  change,  in  weights  and 
measures  to  which  the  metric  advocates  point  is  Mexico.  Mr. 
Troemner  testified  before  the  House  Committee  on  Coinage, 
Weights  and  Measures  (p.  11) :  "  Only  recently,  within  the  past 
two  weeks,  I  talked  with  the  Commissioner  of  Mines  of  Mexico,  who 
visited  me,  and  he  told  me  the  metric  system  was  working  mag- 
nificently in  Mexico  and  that  they  had  made  the  jump  at  once 
from  one  standard  to  the  other." 

Following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  from  the  Superintendent 
of  Machinery  of  the  Mexican  Central  Railway — Mr.  Ben  Johnson. 
The  letter  is  dated  at  Mexico  City,  October  7,  1902: 

"We  use  nothing  whatever  but  American  measurements  in  the  work  of  the 
mechanical  department.  Our  drawings  of  locomotives  and  cars  and  our  shop  tools 
are  all  in  American  measurements,  and  as  far  as  my  information  goes,  this  is  the 
case  with  nearly  all  railroads  in  Mexico." 

The  Mexican  Commissioner  of  Mines  has,  it  is  clear,  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  practice  of  Mexican  railroads.  What  reason  is  there 
for  supposing  that  he  has  any  knowledge  of  other  interests  outside 
his  immediate  personal  experience? 

In  the  journal  of  the  Franklin  Institute  for  November,  1902, 
I  find  a  letter  from  Mr.  R.  C.  Canby,  who  has  lived  in  Mexico 
for  four  and  a  half  years,  where  he  is  in  charge  of  the  works  of 
the  Montezuma  Lead  Co.,  of  Santa  Barbara,  Chihuahua.  From 
this  letter  I  make  the  following  extract: 

"  About  a  year  ago  I  was  sent  by  the  company  to  the  State  of  Chihuahua  to 
superintend  some  new  metallurgical  operations,  and  it  is  surprising  to  me  at  this 
time  to  see  the  Babel  of  standards.  The  survey  of  the  land  upon  which  the  works 
are  built,  as  well  as  all  levels,  are  in  the  metric  system.  The  plans  for  all  build- 
ings and  machinery  are  in  the  American  system.  A  building  so  many  feet  long 
and  so  many  feet  wide  is  on  such  and  such  a  metre  level.  All  lumber  ordered 
from  Texas  or  from  the  mills  in  the  Sierra  Madre  is  ordered  so  many  inches  by  so 
many  feet  in  customary  United  States  sizes.  Local  dealers  sell  you  so  many 
metres  of  such  or  such  inch  pipe,  and  the  bill  so  reads.  All  valves  and  fittings 
come  in  inches.  Of  merchant  iron  you  buy  so  many  kilos  of  the  dimensions  given 
in  inches,  and  I  have  a  list-card  from  one  of  the  Mexican  manufacturers  of  bar  and 


56  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

sheet-iron  giving  the  dimensions  in  £,  £,  £  and  ^  of  an  inch,  that  would  suit  the 
most  conservative  of  your  correspondents.  Obliging  salesmen  in  the  stores  can 
always  give  you  the  price  in  ' metres'  or  '  varas.'  Your  cordwood  has  to  be  con- 
verted from '  cargas '  and  your  hay  or  straw  from '  arrobas.'  " 

My  friend  and  former  associate  in  the  business  of  the  Hand 
Drill  Company — Mr.  V.  M.  Braschi,  now  and  for  twelve  years  in 
the  mining  machinery  and  supply  business  in  the  city  of  Mexico — 
tells  me  the  same  story  as  that  given  in  Mr.  Canby's  letter.  He 
sells,  for  example,  so  many  metres  of  -J-inch  wire  rope.  The  di- 
mension which  the  merchant  measures  off,  and  by  which  he  sets  his 
price  is  metric,  but  other  dimensions  may  be  in  any  unit  which  may 
be  convenient.  What  a  tremendous  saving  of  time  in  calculations 
this  must  lead  to  ! 

Mr.  J.  Parke  Channing,  President  of  the  Tennessee  Copper 
Company,  who,  as  a  mining  engineer,  has  seen  much  of  Mexican 
mining  and  smelting  practice,  furnishes  the  following  account  of 
the  method  of  determining  the  value  of  a  lead  ore  carrying  gold 
and  silver  in  Mexican  smelters : 

"  When  the  ore  contains  5  per  cent,  or  more  of  lead  it  is  paid  for  at 
1  cent  U.  S.  currency  per  pound  when  soft  Spanish  lead  is  quoted  in 
London  at  13  pounds  sterling  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds.  For  each  advance 
or  decline  of  1  shilling,  3  pence  in  the  London  quotation,  1  cent  U.  S. 
currency  .per  100  pounds  for  lead  contents  will  be  added  or  deducted. 

"  The  ore,  however,  is  weighed  an£  deliveries  are  made  in  kilos  and 
assays  are  reported  per  metric  ton  of  1,000  kilos. 

"  The  silver  is  paid  for  at  90%  per  cent,  of  New  York  quotation  which 
is  in  U.  S.  currency  per  troy  ounce.  The  gold,  however,  is  paid  for  at 
$0.6269  U.  S.  currency  per  gram. 

"  Freight  and  treatment  charges  are  $24.50  Mexican  currency  per  ton  of 
2,000  pounds  avoirdupois." 

Mr.  Channing  also  informs  me  that  in  Mexico  lumber  is  sawn 
to  English  dimensions  in  length,  breadth  and  thickness,  but  that 
the  bill  for  a  purchase  of  lumber  will  call  for  so  many  square 
metres  of  one-inch  boards. 

And  all  this  is  in  Mexico,  where  the  metric  system  is  "  working 
magnificently,"  and  where  it  has  been  illegal  to  use  any  other 
weights  and  measures  since  January  1,  1884. 


THE  PEKSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  CUBA. 

From  a  letter  by  Mr.  Alberto  de  Verastegui,  formerly  Cuban 
agent  of  the  Babcock  and  Wilcox  Co.,  to  Mr.  H.  F.  De  Puy, 
secretary  of  that  company,  I  extract  the  following  regarding  the 
conditions  in  Cuba : 

"  The  metric  system  was  established  [in  Cuba]  by  the  Spanish  govern- 
ment as  a  standard  for  the  payment  of  custom  house  duties  and  for  all 
official  purposes,  but  was  not  made  obligatory  for  trade,  and  the  conse- 
quence was  the  greatest  confusion,  because  every  trade  stuck  to  its  old 
custom.  So  the  hardware  people  used  the  English  foot  as  a  standard  of 
length,  and  the  Spanish  pound  as  a  standard  of  weight,  while  the  dry 
goods  people  buy  their  goods  by  the  yard  in  England  and  the  United 
States,  by  the  metre  in  France,  and  retail  them  in  Cuba  by  the  Spanish 
yard. 

"  In  the  sugar  industry,  although  in  buying  land  they  are  compelled 
by  law  to  use  the  metric  system  as  a  standard,  they  are  not  forced  to  use 
it  in  private  transactions,  and  the  consequence  is  that  as  they  cannot  see 
as  yet  in  their  minds  what  an  hectarea  represents,  they  stick  to  the  old 
unit  called  caballeria,  which  is  equivalent  to  about  33%  acres. 

"  In  buying  and  selling  cane  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  island,  the  ton 
is  the  standard  of  weight,  but  by  a  ton  they  mean  2,500  Spanish  pounds, 
while  in  the  western  part  the  truck-load  is  the  unit. 

"  In  selling  sugar  in  the  Cuban  market,  the  standard  is  the  Castilian 
arroba,  of  25  Spanish  pounds,  and  the  quotations  are  made  in  reales,  an 
obsolete  coin  equivalent  to  12%  cents  in  gold,  and  to  the  American  market 
it  is  sold  in  dollars  and  cents  of  American  money." 

The  above  quotation  shows,  of  course,  how  promptly  the 
people  follow  the  lead  of  the  government  in  these  matters,  and 
how  the  adoption  of  the  system  by  the  government  introduces 
"  uniformity." 

In  the  Report  on  Cuba,  made  by  Mr.  H.  D.  Dumont  as  a 
delegate  of  the  Merchants  Association  of  New  York,  the  output 
of  plantations  is  given  in  hogsheads  and  tons,*  and  again  in 
arrobas  per  caballeria,  the  size  of  tobacco  plantations  in  caballe- 
rias,  the  price  of  tobacco  at  Cienfuegos  in  hundredweights, 
coffee  production  in  quintales,  the  production  of  cacao  in  quin- 
tales  per  caballeria,  of  malagas  in  arrobas  per  acre,  and  the  profit 
on  pineapples  and  bananas  is  calculated  per  caballeria.  Xowhere 
in  the  report  is  there  a  reference  to  any  metric  unit. 

*  Note  that  by  the  previous  letter  a  ton  means  2,500  Spanish  pounds. 


THE  PERSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  OTHER  SPANISH- 
AMERICAN  COUNTRIES. 

The  conditions  in  Brazil  are  thus  explained  by  M.  de  L'Espee, 
who  has  already  been  quoted  regarding  conditions  in  Erance : 

"  In  South  America,  the  progress  with  the  general  public  has  been  slower,  as 
could  have  been  expected.  In  Brazil,  a  country  I  know  well,*  outside  of  the  large 
cities  metric  units  are  in  but  little  use,  and  the  variety  of  standards  is  practically 
unlimited.  Most  books  give  such  units  as  vara,  etc.,  which  I  never  saw  em- 
ployed. Those  I  saw  in  use  are  the  following : 

"Length:  The  pollegada  (inch);  the  palma  (the  old  French  palme  of  22 
centimeters) ;  the  pe  (foot) ;  the  braca  (brasse) ;  the  legua  (league)  of  6,600  metres. 

"  Area :  The  alquiere,  containing  8  salamis,  and  varying  widely  in  size  from 
one  place  to  another;  it  is  equal  to  2.2  hectares  in  Minas  Geraes. 

"  Volumes :  The  alquiere  of  33  litres  is  used  for  grain,  as  well  as  the  carro,  or 
load  of  a  bullcart.  For  liquids,  the  pipa  of  some  600  litres,  and  the  cargueiro  or 
mule  load,  consisting  of  2  small  barrels  of  40  litres  each. 

.  "  Weights:  The  arroba  of  15  kilos  is  generally  used,  to  such  an  extent  that  the 
Rio  Janeiro  Exchange  has  to  mark  coffee  quotations  in  arrobas,  whereas  the 
Santos  market  gives  quotations  per  10  kilos.  Gold  is  uniformly  sold  by  the 
oitava  ( J  oz.) 

Following  are  extracts  from  a  letter  by  Mr.  D.  S:  Iglehart,  of 
the  export  house  of  W.  R.  Grace  &  Co.  He  lived  for  a  time  in 
Peru,  and  has  fortified  his  recollection  of  the  facts  by  consulting 
the  Peruvian  Consul  General: 

"I  have  to-day  seen  the  Peruvian  Consul-General,  who  advises  me  that  the 
metric  system  of  weights  and  measures  was  established  as  the  legal  standard  in 
Peru,  November  29,  1862. 

"As  regards  the  system  used  in  length  measurements  among  merchants,  the 
standard  almost  universally  employed  is  the  vara  (.836  metres) .  This  is  especially 
true  of  the  retail  trade.  Among  wholesale  merchants  the  metre  is  at  times  em- 
ployed, as  is  also  our  yard.  Feet  and  inches  are  used  in  connection  with  the 
vara. 

"  What  I  have  said  regarding  Peru  is  more  or  less  true  of  Chile,  although  I  think 
that  there  the  metric  system  is  a  little  more  extensively  employed." 

At  the  Indianapolis  (1892)  meeting  of  the  National  Associa- 
*  M.  de  L'Espee  lived  four  years  in  Brazil. 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  59 

lion  of  Manufacturers  I  had  a  long  conversation  with  Mr.  Rudolf 
Dolge,  who,  as  a  representative  of  that  association,  has  travelled 
extensively  in  Europe,  China,  and  Venezuela,  in  which  last 
country  he  has  lived  for  four  years.  He  has  acted  in  almost  every 
conceivable  commercial  capacity  for  almost  every  conceivable  kind 
of  business,  having  had  charge  of  the  warehouse  of  the  associa- 
tion at  Caracas,  Venezuela,  and  his  opportunities  for  observation 
have  thus  been  unique.  His  story  is  the  same  as  that  of  Mr.  Igle- 
hart — in  Venezuela  the  metre  is  practically  unknown,  the  old  vara 
being  the  commercial  unit  of  length.  He  reports  the  same  con- 
dition in  China,  where  he  lived  for  two  years.  For  the  claim  that 
the  metre  is,  in  any  real  sense,  established  as  an  international 
unit  he  has  nothing  but  contempt. 

As  I  read  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Iglehart  and  Mr.  Dolge,  the  dry- 
goods  merchants  of  Peru  and  Venezuela  have  not  yet  changed 
the  tacks  upon  their  counters  wherewith  they  measure  ribbon. 

In  the  article,  La  Convention  du  Metre  et  le  Bureau  Inter- 
national des  Poids  et  Mesures,  published  in  the  Bulletin  de  la 
Societe  d* Encouragement  pour  T1  Industrie  Nationale  for  June  30, 
1893,  is  the  following  statement  of  the  conditions  prevailing  in 
Central  America : 

"  The  metric  system  is  little  employed  in  Central  America.  The  govern- 
ments of  Guatemala,  Costa  Rica,  Nicaragua  and  San  Salvador  have  in- 
troduced it  in  the  customs  and  made  it  optional,  but  the  law  has  remained 
without  great  effect  in  commerce.  Honduras  has  remained  thus  far  a 
stranger  to  the  system." 

The  case  against  the  metric  system  in  Spanish  America  is  com- 
pletely confessed  by  the  Monthly  Bulletin  of  the  International 
Bureau,  of  the  American  Republics,  which  publishes  regularly, 
apparently  from  standing  type  (for  instance,  page  xvii  of  the 
issue  for  September,  1903),  and  with  the  usual  metric  units,  a 
table  of  forty-seven  non-metric  units,  some  of  which  are  credited 
tc  every  Spanish- American  country.  The  caption  of  this  table 
reads :  "  The  following  table  gives  the  chief  weights  and  measures 
in  commercial  use  in  Mexico  and  the  Kepublics  of  Central  and 
South  America." 


THE  PEKSISTENCE  OF  OLD  UNITS  IN  METEIC 
COUOTKIES  GENEKALLY. 

In  Special  Consular  Keports,  vol.  xvi.,  issued  by  the  Bureau 
of  Foreign  Commerce  of  the  State  Department,  Washington,  I  find 
a  table  of  "  Equivalents  of  Domestic  and  Foreign  Weights  and 
Measures  as  Established  by  Law  or  Custom."  Following  is  an  ab- 
stract of  as  much  of  this  table  as  relates  to  non-metric  units  used 
in  metric  countries* 

NON-METRIC  UNITS  USED  IN  METRIC  COUNTRIES. 

COMPILED    BY   THE    DEPARTMENT    OF    STATE,    WASHINGTON. 


Denominations. 

Where  used. 

American  equivalents. 

Aam  (wine). 

Amsterdam 

41  gallons 

Aam  (oil) 

do 

37  73  gallons 

Aam     

Antwerp 

57  5635  gallons 

Do     

Rotterdam 

40  559  gallons 

Achtel  : 
Dry 

Austria 

0  2181  bushel 

Solid  .  . 

Prussia 

0  2083  bushel 

Alim  (liquor)  .  . 

Amsterdam 

40  00  gallons 

Do  

Hamburg 

38  1473  gallons 

Do  

Hanover 

41  4395  gallons 

Do  

Leipsic 

40  0769  gallons 

Ahm  (liquor)  .  . 

Lubeck 

39  5739  gallons 

Almude 

Canary  Islands 

0  1481  bushel 

Do  

Lisbon 

4  3697  gallons 

Do  

Oporto  . 

6  731  gallons 

Do  

Sicily 

4  896  gallons 

Aln     

Sweden  ....... 

0  6494  yard 

Alqueire  (dry)  .  . 

Brazil  .... 

1.1042  bushels 

Alqueire  

Lisbon 

2.  1848  gallons 

Alqueire  (dry)       .... 

do  

0.3837  bushel 

Alqueire..  .                .... 

Oporto  

3.3128  gallons. 

Do 

Portugal  ' 

2  1848  gallons 

Alqueire  (dry) 

do 

4  75  bushels 

Am  or  ahm  . 

Sweden 

41  4432  bushels 

Aniola  

Genoa 

0  2175  bushel 

Anker  .  . 

Amsterdam 

10  25  gallons 

Do  ... 

Hamburg 

9  5368  gallons 

Do  

Riga 

10  333  gallons 

Do  

Rostock 

9  562  gallons 

Do  , 

Rotterdam 

10  1392  gallons 

Do  

Sweden 

13  3608  gallons 

Do  

Alexandria 

7  6907  bushels 

Do  

Cairo 

5  1649  bushels 

*  Examination  of  this  table  will  show  that  strict  accuracy  in  the  selections  is 
not  easy.  Owing  to  this  difficulty,  I  have  endeavored  to  resolve  all  doubts  in 
favor  of  the  metric  system  and  following  this  policy  have  omitted  all  Russian  and 
Danish  units.  In  spite  of  this  policy  it  is  possible  that  the  table  may  contain  a 
few  units  which  should  have  been  excluded ;  but  for  every  such  unit  there  are  not 
less  than  three  which  belong  in  the  table,  but  which  because  of  the  above  named 
policy  have  been  excluded.  The  reader  will  note  the  numerous  German  units. 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 


61 


NON-METRIC  UNITS   USED  IN  METRIC  COUNTRIES-  Continued. 


Denominations. 

Where  used. 

American  equivalents. 

\rratel 

Brazil  .... 

1.0  19  pounds. 

Do 

Portugal  

1.012  pounds. 

Arroba                 •  •          

Argentina  

25.32  pounds. 

Do         

Bolivia  

25.3537  pounds. 

Do 

Brazil 

32.38  pounds. 

Do 

Buenos  Ayres  .  .  . 

25.36  pounds. 

Do 

Canary  Islands  . 

4.245  gallons. 

Do 

Cuba 

25.4375  pounds. 

Do  

do  

4.  1  gallons. 

Do               ... 

Mexico  

25.365  pounds. 

Do            .... 

Chile  .  .                         ..... 

25.365  pounds. 

Do      

Portugal  

32.38  pounds. 

Do  

Spain  . 

25.36  pounds. 

Do  

^     j  
do  

4.2630  gallons. 

Arsin  

Hungary  

0.6392  yard. 

Aune  

Basel  

1.2833  yards. 

Do 

Belgium  . 

0  7611  yard. 

Do 

France 

1  25  yards 

Do 

Geneva 

1  25  yards 

Bambou 

Madagascar 

0.0576  bushel. 

Barile 

Argentina      .... 

20.0768  gallons. 

Barile  (oil)               

Genoa     .          

17  0835  gallons. 

Barile  (wine)  ....        .    . 

do  

19.61  gallons. 

Barile      ...                    

Malta  

1  1  gallons. 

Do  

Mexico  

20  gallons. 

Do  

Naples.        

11.  5732  gallons. 

Barril  (honey)  

Havana  .        

6  gallons. 

Barril     

Lisbon  .            

78.  655  gallons. 

Barril  (raisins) 

Malaga 

50  6  pounds. 

Barique  (wine) 

Bordeaux 

60  gallons. 

Do                      .  . 

Nantes  

63  405  gallons. 

Do         

Rochelle 

46.04  gallons. 

Batman                           .    ... 

Do  

Constantinople  .                ... 

19.  132  pounds. 

Boccale     

Bologna  

0.346  gallon. 

Do 

Leghorn 

0  301  gallon 

Do               ... 

Milan  . 

0  208  gallon 

Do           

Venice     .  .  . 

0  267  gallon 

Bota             .  . 

Portugal  

113.631  gallons? 

Do     

Spain  .         .              

127.89  gallons. 

Botta                         

Messina  

108  gallons. 

Do  

Naples  

128.879  gallons: 

Do 

Rome  

246  6  gallons. 

Box: 
Raisins  .  . 

Malaga  " 

44  pounds. 

Do  

Deiaa  and  Valencia  

56  pounds. 

Braccio  

Basel  .  .       .            

0.5951  yard. 

Do 

Leghorn 

0  6383  yard 

Do  

Milan                    .     .     .    . 

1  0936  yards 

Caban  : 
Cocoa  .     

Manila 

83  50  pounds. 

Rice  

do     .... 

133  pounds. 

Canada.  

Bahia  

1.8727  gallons. 

Do  

Rio  Janeiro 

0  3641  gallon 

Canna                              .    . 

Genoa 

2  4518  yards 

Do  

Leghorn  .  .  . 

2  553  yards 

Do  

Messina  ....        

2.31  11  yards. 

THE   METRIC   FALLACY. 


NON-METRIC  UNITS  USED  IN  METRIC  COUNTRIES- Continued. 


Denominations. 

Where  used. 

American  equivalents. 

Cantara  (maximum) 

Spain 

4  8714  gallons 

Cantara  (mean) 

do  .... 

3  3753  gallons 

Cantaro 

Cairo  

95.0312  pounds 

Do 

Constantinople 

140.3008  pounds 

Do  ... 

Cuba 

4.1  gallons 

Cantaro  (grosso) 

Genoa  . 

115.31  pounds 

Cantaro  (sottile)           .  . 

do         

104.83  pounds 

Carga  (raisins)  

Malaga  .... 

177.5  pounds 

Carga  (raisins)  

Valencia                    .    . 

338.44  pounds 

Carga  (wine) 

Barcelona     

31.  8493  gallons 

Carjja  (oil)  . 

..  .do  

32.6524  gallons. 

Carrata  : 
Marble 

Carrara   

2,240  pounds. 

Solid  

.     do  

7.  1268  cubic  feet. 

Carreau  (stone) 

France 

3  632  cubic  feet 

Carro  (dry)               

Naples  

56.3258  bushels. 

Do 

do     .         . 

257  757  gallons 

Catty  

China  

1.3333  pounds. 

Do 

Japan     . 

1.3085  pounds 

Do            ... 

Java     

1.356  pounds 

Cavezzo 

Florence 

3.8257  yards. 

Do  

Venice 

2.2818  yards. 

Centner  .  .  . 

Bremen 

127.5  pounds. 

Do  

Norway     .     .     .     

110.11  pounds 

Do  

Nurnberg  .  .              .... 

112.  43  pounds. 

Do  

Prussia   ...           .... 

113.44  pounds. 

Do 

Sweden 

112  512  pounds 

Do 

Vienna 

123  4677  pounds 

Chenng                                .... 

Canton  

4.  1007  yards. 

Do 

Pekin 

3.6458  yards 

Chik  or  Chih 

China 

0.3917  yard 

Corba 

Bologna  

20.7618  gallons 

Drv 

do  

2.231  7  bushels 

Coupe  .  .    .            

Geneva  

2.2036  bushels. 

Covid 

Do 

China     

0.3907  yard. 

Do 

Java  

0.75  yard. 

Cubic  foot  (marble) 

Carrara  

185  pounds. 

Cubic  foot  (onyx) 

Mexico  .         .    . 

215  pounds. 

Cubic  palmo  (marble)  

Italy     

0.555  cubic  foot. 

Derah 

Cairo  

0.708  yard. 

Dirhem      

Do  

Constantinople  

49.5  grains. 

Drachma 

Cairo 

48.6  grains 

Do  

Hungary  

48.62  grains. 

Do  

Vienna     

67.69  grains. 

Dragma 

Amsterdam           .... 

59.32  grains 

Dreiling 

Vienna      

448.5741  gallons 

Duim 

Holland 

1.094  yards. 

Eimer 

Austria 

14.9526  gallons. 

Eimer  (beer) 

Bavaria 

18.0751  gallons. 

Eimer  (wine) 

Bavaria 

16.9444  gallons. 

Eimer 

Berlin 

18.  1464  gallons. 

Do                         ... 

Hamburg         ... 

7.6295  gallons. 

Do                    

Leipsic     

20.0384  gallons. 

Do  

Nurnberg     

18.2233  gallons. 

Do  

Prague  

16.9515  gallons. 

THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 


63 


NON-METRIC   UNITS    USED  IN  METRIC    COUNTRIES-  Continued, 


Denominations. 

Where  used. 

American  equivalents. 

Eimsr 

Rostock 

7  6506  gallons 

Eimer  (lauter-mass)  

Zurich  

28.9275  gallons. 

Eimer  (triiber-mass) 

do     

30.866  gallons. 

Ell     

Holland 

1.094  yards. 

Elle' 

Austria 

0.8522  yard. 

Do 

Basel  

1.2337  yards. 

Do 

Bavaria 

0.911  yard 

Do 

Berlin     . 

0.7293  yard 

Do 

Bremen 

0.6438  yard 

Do 

Dresden 

0.6  196  yard. 

Do      

Frankfort-on-the-Main 

0.5986  yard. 

Elle  (silk) 

Hamburg 

0.6266  yard. 

Elle  (wool) 

do  

0.7562  yard. 

Elle 

Munich   . 

0.9  11  yard. 

Do 

Prague 

0.6496  yard 

Do 

Rostock 

0.6325  yard 

Do     

Zurich 

0.6563  yard 

Embar 

Sweden     

20.7327  gallons. 

Emmer 

Antwerp  

8.8059  gallons. 

Estado     

Spain  . 

1.8547  yards. 

Fanega 

Buenos  Ayrcs 

3.75  bushels. 

Do 

Chile 

2  838  bushels 

Do 

Havana 

3  11  02  bushels 

Do 

Maderia 

1  601  bushels 

Do     

Mexico     

1.5473  gallons. 

Do  

Montevideo  

3.868  gallons. 

Do  

Spain 

1.5753  bushels. 

Do  

Valparaiso     .... 

2.5753  bushels. 

Fanga 

Azores  Islands 

1.36  bushels. 

Do 

Lisbon 

1  5347  bushels 

Do  

Oporto 

1  9374  bushels 

Do     

Rio  Janeiro. 

1.5347  bushels. 

Fass     . 

Berlin.     . 

60.497  gallons. 

Do  

Bohemia   ....         . 

64.56  gallons. 

Fass  (oil)  

Hamburg  

38.2556  gallons. 

Fass  (dry)  

....  do  

1.4941  bushels. 

Fass  (wine) 

Leipzig 

100  1737  gallons 

Fass  (beer)     

do     

95.4052  gallons. 

Fass     . 

Prague     .... 

67.806  gallons 

Fass  (dry) 

Rostock  

0.2758  bushel. 

Fass  (wine)  

Vienna  

153.2629  gallons. 

Fass  (beer) 

do     . 

31  7727  gallons 

Fjerding 

Finland. 

8  2931  gallons 

Do     

Sweden     

8  29  gallons 

Fierding  (dry) 

do     

0  5  196  bushel 

Fot     

Sweden     

0.9714  foot 

Frasco  

Brazil  

0.5625  gallon. 

Fuder     .... 

Berlin 

217  7883  gallons 

Do  

Copenhagen 

237  3375  gallons 

Do     

Frankfort-on-the-Main 

227  3462  gallons 

Do     

Hamburg 

229  7791  gallons 

Do  

L/eipzig 

240  4612  gallons 

Do 

Rostock 

229  5  178  gallons 

Do  

Sweden 

258  8028  gallons 

Do     

Vienna 

478  479  bushels 

Fuss          

Yntwerp     

0  3  123  yard 

Do  

Berlin     .     . 

0  3432  yard 

64: 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 


NON-METRIC  UNITS  USED  IN  METRIC  COUNTRIES—  Continued. 


Denominations. 

Where  used. 

American  equivalents. 

Fuss  

Bremen 

0  3  163  yard 

Do  

Frankfort     

0.31  13  yard 

Do  

Hamburg 

0.3  133  yard 

Do  

Hungary 

0.3457  yard 

Do  

*r        •    i_        

Munich 

0.3  192  yard 

Do  .  .      . 

Vienna 

0  3457  vard 

Hok  (dry)  

China  

1.0887  bushels 

Ikje     

Japan 

2  3165  yards 

Ink     

Japan 

2  0785  yards 

Kan 

China 

1  3333  pounds 

Do 

Holland 

0  2642  gallon 

Kande 

Norway. 

0  5104  gallon 

Kanne 

Batavia 

0  3939  gallon 

Do  

Hamburg 

0  4782  gallon 

Do  

Leipzig 

0  3181  gallon 

Do     

Rostock     

0.4349  gallon 

Kanne  (butter)     .... 

Saxony 

24  7344  pounds 

Kanne 

Vienna     

0.1873  gallon 

Kasten     .... 

Wurtemberg 

4.0047  bushels 

Knital 

Constantinople 

124.564  pounds 

Klafter    .     . 

Basel     

1.2893  yards 

Klafter  (solid)     .... 

Basle 

128  cubic  feet 

Klafter         .     . 

Berlin         .     . 

2.0595  yards 

Klafter  (solid)             .     .   . 

do         

117.  907  cubic  feet 

Klafter         .     . 

Bremen 

189.77  yards 

Do     

Hamburg 

1.8799  yards 

Do     

Leipzig 

1.8547  yards 

Klafter  (solid)         .     . 

do         

100  49  cubic  feet 

Klafter         .     . 

Vienna     

2.0742  yards. 

Do          

Wurtemberg 

1  88  yards 

Klafter  (solid)         .     . 

do     

119  583  cubic  feet. 

Kong-pu     

China 

0.3347  yard 

Kopf               

Zurich 

0  9643  gallon. 

Korb      

Zurich 

10.538  bushels 

Kumme 

Berlin         .     . 

26  841  cubic  feet. 

Kwan 

China                    .     .     . 

40  pounds. 

Lagel  (steel)     

Prussia 

103.  1156  pounds. 

Landfass 

Berne     

264.971  gallons. 

Last 

Amsterdam     

85.2457  pounds. 

Last 

Bremen 

329.718  pounds. 

Last  (dry)     . 

do     

84.078  bushels. 

Last 

Hamburg 

89.8163  bushels. 

Do            ... 

Prussia 

112.292  bushels. 

Lastre          

Argentina     

58.404  bushels. 

Legger  (arrack) 

Amsterdam  .            

153.752  gallons. 

Do  

Batavia     .         ...'..... 

160  gallons. 

Leung 

China                      

0.0833  pound. 

Libbra 

Bologna     

0.7984  pound. 

Libbra(old)  
Libra 

Italy  
Chile         

0.8146  pound. 
1.0141  pounds. 

Do         

Cuba               

1.0161  pounds. 

Do         

Mexico     

1.01465  pounds. 

Do         

Peru     

1.0  143  pounds. 

Do         

Spain     .        

1.0143  pounds. 

Do         

United  States  of  Colombia  .  . 

1.0143  pounds. 

Do        

Uruguay  

1.0143  pounds. 

Do         

Venezuela  

1.0143  pounds. 

THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 


65 


NON-METRIC  UNITS  USED  IN  METRIC  COUNTRIES—  Continued. 


Denominations. 

Where  used. 

American  equivalents. 

Libra 

Porto  Rico 

1  0161  pounds 

Lispund  

Norway 

17  6158  pounds 

Lispund  (metal) 

Sweden    

14.9965  pounds 

Lispund  (viktualie)  

do  

18.7457  pounds. 

Litra  

Greece  .    . 

0.2642  gallon. 

Livre 

Antwerp 

1  037  pounds 

Do      . 

Bordeaux 

1  1024  pounds 

Do  

Brussels 

1.0311  pounds 

Do  

Geneva 

1.2  142  pounds 

Livre  (silk)     

Lyons 

1.01  18  pounds 

Maas 

Austria 

0.373  gallon. 

Do  

Bavaria     . 

0.2824  gallon. 

Maat  (salt)  

Amsterdam     

1.745  bushels. 

Mallal 

Barcelona 

3  9812  gallons 

Malter 

Baden 

4  2567  gallons 

Do 

Prussia 

18  7164  bushels 

Do 

Zurich 

9  44  16  bushels 

Mass 

Austria 

0.373  gallon 

Do               ... 

Bavaria 

0.2824  gallon 

Medida 

Brazil 

0.7331  gallon 

Metical 

Constantinople 

74.25  grains. 

Metze     

Austria 

1.7454  bushels. 

Do     

Hungary 

1.774  bushels. 

Mezzaruola                 

Genoa.  .  .  . 

39.2172  gallons. 

Mina         

Genoa  

3.4257  bushels. 

Do 

Greece 

2  2046  pounds 

Do                        ... 

Milan 

2  6418  gallons 

Moegio  

Venice  

9.081  bushels. 

i  i  •  6 
JVloio          .     .     . 

Lisbon 

23.0202  bushels 

Monkelzer 

Persia 

0.7836  yard 

Monme 

Japan     .... 

3.750  grammes 

Mudde 

Holland 

2.8378  bushels 

Muid 

French  Guiana  . 

70.8552  gallons. 

Do  

Brussels  

8.032  bushels. 

Do  

Paris   

53.  1579  bushels. 

Mutt     .     .           

St.  Gall  

2.344  bushels. 

Do  

Zurich  

2.3304  bushels. 

Ocquich 

Cairo 

0  1504  ounce 

Ohm 

Baden     

39  6267  gallons 

Do  

Basel     

13  4459  gallons. 

Do  

Berlin     .     . 

49.8197  gallons. 

Do  

Bremen 

38.2965  gallons. 

Do  

Frankfort   

37.891  gallons. 

Do 

Lubeck 

38  4394  gallons 

Oka 

Cairo 

2  7771  pounds 

Do  .         ... 

Constantinople 

2  8342  pounds 

Do  

EffVDt 

2  7235  pounds 

Do  

Greece 

3  371*4  pounds 

Do  

Hungary 

3  08  17  pounds. 

Orcio  (oil) 

AJ.UllgO.lJ    

r  lorence 

8.8315  gallons. 

Ottingkar     

Finland  .... 

4.  1476  gallons. 

Outava  (precious  stones) 

Brazil  .  .  ,  

0.1  307  ounce. 

Oxhoft 

Berlin 

54  4391  gallons 

Do  

Dresden 

53  43  gallons 

Do  

Hamburg 

57  221  gallons 

Do  

Hanover     .          .... 

62.  1593  gallons 

Oxhoft  (brandy)     .     . 

Leipsic     

60.  11  53  gallons 

THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 


NON-METRIC    UNITS    USED    IN    METRIC    COUNTRIES  -Continued. 


Denominations. 

Where  used. 

American  equivalents. 

Oxhoft  (wine)  

Leipsic    k. 

53.4358  gallons. 

Oxhoft     

Rostock 

57  3822  gallons 

Oxhufwud     

Sweden 

62  1980  gallons. 

Palme 

Belgium 

3  937  inches. 

Palmo  

Brazil 

8.5592  inches. 

Palmo  (marble)       

Carrara  ... 

9.592  inches. 

Palmo  

Leghorn     .... 

11.  4884  inches. 

Pecul  

China 

133.3333  pounds. 

Do  

Japan 

130  pounds. 

Do  

Malacca 

135  pounds. 

Do  

Manila 

140  pounds. 

Pfund  

Austria 

1.2347  pounds. 

Do  

Baden     

1.1  024  pounds. 

Do  

Basel     

1.0792  pounds. 

Do  

Bavaria 

1.2347  pounds. 

Do  

Berlin         .     . 

1.0312  pounds. 

Do  

Bremen 

1.0991  pounds. 

Do  

Brunswick     .         .             .  . 

1.0296  pounds. 

Do  

Frankfurt     

1.1141  pounds. 

Pfund  (zoll)  

Germany 

1.1025  pounds. 

Pfund 

Hambur0" 

1  0679  pounds 

Do  

Hanover 

1.0794  pounds. 

Do  

Leipsic     

1.0306  pounds. 

Do  

Prussia 

1.0312  pounds. 

Do..  .  

Rostock     

1.1  205  pounds. 

Do 

Vienna 

1  2347  pounds 

Do  

Zurich  

1.1651  pounds. 

Pfundschwer 

Bremen 

329  57  pounds 

Do  

Cairo 

0.7404  yard. 

Do     .                        ... 

Constantinople 

0  7317  yard 

Pi6  

Argentina     

0.3159  yard. 

Do  

Cuba 

0.3091  yard. 

Do 

Curacao 

0  3090  yard 

Do  

Mexico     

0.3091  yard. 

Do 

Spain 

0  3091  yard 

Do     

Venice 

0.3803  yard. 

Ping  .  .          

China 

17.4186  bushels. 

Pipa 

Canary  Islands 

120  gallons. 

Do     

Lisbon 

135  gallons. 

Do     

Madeira 

110  gallons. 

Do 

Rio  Janeiro 

132  089  gallons 

Do     

Sweden     

124.3961  gallons. 

Pipe  (brandy)  

Bordeaux 

99.5951  gallons. 

Do     .     .     

Cognac     .... 

152.7821  gallons. 

Pond  (Brabant)  

Amsterdam     

1.0371  pounds. 

Pond  (Troy)  

do     

1.0847  pounds. 

Pot     

Antwerp     

0.363  gallon. 

Pot  (beer)  ' 

Brussels     

0.3435  gallon. 

Pot  (wine)     

do     

0.3578  gallon. 

Pott     .                         ... 

Basel     .          ... 

0.1051  gallon. 

Do 

Denmark 

0  2552  gallon 

Do 

Norway 

0  2552  gallon 

Quardeel  (oil) 

Amsterdam     

98.  1421  gallons. 

Quarto  (oil)  

Genoa 

4.2709  gallons. 

Quene  

Burgundy       

106.2841  gallons. 

Quilate  (precious  stones)  .... 

Brazil                               .    .    . 

3.075  grains. 

Quintal     

Argentina 

101  27  pounds. 

THE   METRIC   FALLACY. 


67 


NON-METRIC  UNITS  USED  IN  METRIC  COUNTRIES-  Continued. 


Denominations. 

Where  used. 

American  equivalents. 

Quintal 

Brazil 

130  0604  pounds 

V      Do" 

Chile 

101  6097  pounds 

Do          

Mexico 

101  6097  pounds 

Do     

Peru     .... 

101  6097  pounds 

Do     

Spain 

101  6097  pounds 

Do     

Valencia 

109  7285  pounds. 

Raza  (salt)     

Oporto     

1  2509  bushels 

Raziere 

Antwerp 

2  2597  bushels 

Rebeb 

Alexandria 

4  4582  bushels 

Rjoo 

Japan 

0  1659  pound 

Rotl 

Cairo 

0  9804  pound 

Rottel     .         

Turkey 

1  247  pounds 

Rubbio 

Leghorn 

7  7767  bushels 

Do     

Rome     

8  3553  bushels. 

Ruthe 

Bavaria 

3  1919  yards. 

Do     

Bremen 

5.0604  yards. 

Do 

Lcipsic 

4  945  yards 

Do 

Prussia 

4  119  yards 

Do 

Zurich     . 

3  296  vards 

Do  
Sac  (wheat  and  flour)  

Geneva  
Paris  

2.204  bushels. 
5.9987  bushels. 

Sacco 

Leghorn     .         ... 

2  0746  bushels 

Do         

Milan 

4  151  bushels 

Do     

Nice 

3  4054  bushels. 

Do     

Turin 

3  2635  bushels. 

Sack     

Basel     

3  8781  bushels. 

Salma             .         

Naples 

40.2726  gallons. 

Salma  (oil) 

do 

42  1667  gallons 

Salma,  (wine) 

Sicily 

22  gallons 

Salma  (dry) 

do 

7  8  bushels 

Salma  (grosso) 

do 

10  bushels 

Sals 

Japan     .... 

0  33  14  yard 

Saum 

Austria 

275  pounds 

Do     

Basel 

40  3377  gallons 

Do         

St.  Gall 

44.371  gallons 

Do 

Switzerland 

441  8293  pounds 

Do 

Vienna 

339  5357  pounds 

Scheffel 

Bavaria 

6  31  bushels 

Do 

Bremen 

2  102  bushels 

Do     

Dresden 

2  9485  bushels 

Do     

Hamburg 

2  9884  bushels. 

Scheffel  (barley)     .... 

do     

4  4823  bushels. 

Scheffel     

Leipsic     

2.9485  bushels. 

Do  

Prussia 

1.5597  bushels. 

Do 

\Veimar 

2  1841  bushels 

Do 

Wurttemberg 

5  0292  bushels 

Schepel 

Holland 

0  2838  bushel 

Schifflast 

Berlin 

4  124  72  pounds. 

Schiffpfund 

do     . 

340  41  14  pounds 

Do     

Bremen 

318  7274  pounds. 

Do     

Hamburg 

299  0082  pounds. 

Schippond  

Amsterdam     

326.742  pounds. 

Do 

Antwerp 

310  974  pounds 

Schoppen 

Basel     .     . 

0  0991  gallon. 

Do     

Frankfort     

0.1  184  gallon. 

Schragen 

Leipsic     

30  1.47  cubic  feet. 

Schuh.  . 

Basel.. 

0.331  vard. 

68 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 


NON-METRIC  UNITS  USED  IN  METRIC  COUNTRIES-  Continued. 


Denominations. 

Where  used. 

American  equivalents. 

Sei  

China  

3.47  16  bushels. 

Sextingkar  

Finland  

2.0733  gallons 

Shik: 
Tsong  

China  

160  pounds 

Shi  

do  

2.  1773  bushels 

Sjoo     .     .     . 

Japan 

0  4591  gallon 

Skalpund     .         ... 

Sweden 

0  9361  pound 

Skeppund  : 
Metal  

.  .do 

299.931  pounds 

Viktualie  

do  

374.9136  pounds. 

Stab 

Frankfort 

1  3124  yards 

Do     .         ... 

Hungary 

1  7285  yards 

Do     

Leipsic 

1  2365  yards 

Do     

St  Gall 

1  3  124  yards 

Stajo                    .     . 

Leghorn 

0  69  16  bushel 

Stajo  or  staro  

Naples  

2.6163  gallons 

Stangr 

Sweden 

5  181  yards 

Steekan 

Amsterdam 

5  1251  gallons 

Stein  

Berlin  .  .      .     . 

22  686  pounds 

Stein  (flux)  

Bremen     . 

21  9812  pounds 

Do     .                    . 

Hamburg 

21  3577  pounds 

Do     . 

Rostock 

24  65  pounds 

Stein  

Vienna     

24  65  pounds 

Sten  

Sweden     

29  993  pounds 

Stop  

Sweden     

0  3454  gallon 

Strich     

Prague     

2  6562  bushels 

Stiickfass  

Frankfort     

303  1283  gallons 

Stiitz     

Neufchatcl 

4  0246  gallons 

Talanton   

Greece  

330  607  pounds 

Tarn 

China 

133  3333  pounds 

Tass  (figs) 

Portugal 

33  pounds. 

Tercio  (tobacco)     .... 

Cuba 

160  pounds 

Tomolo     

Naples 

1  5646  bushels. 

Tonelada 

Argentina 

29  202  bushels 

Tonne  (beer)     

Berlin         .     . 

30  2484  gallons. 

Do     ....... 

Bremen 

43  8361  gallons. 

Do  

Germany     

2  204.6212  pounds. 

Do   

Hamburg     .... 

45.7771  gallons. 

Do 

Rostock 

30  6192  gallons 

Tun  (oil)  

Malaga         .... 

2.233  pounds. 

Tunna 

Sweden 

33  1596  gallons 

Dry  

do         

4.1571  gallons. 

Uper 

Belgium 

0  9075  gallon 

Urna     ...           ... 

Hungary 

14  3053  gallons. 

Vaam     

Holland 

2  0594  yards. 

Vara     .... 

Argentina 

0  9478  yard. 

Do     

Chile 

0  9164  yard. 

Do     

Cuba 

0  9271  yard. 

Do     

Mexico 

0.9139  yard. 

Do     

Peru     ...          .     . 

0.9164  yard. 

Do 

Portufdl 

1  203  yards 

Do  

Spain     .                             .  . 

0.9141  yard. 

Do 

Venezuela 

0  9141  yard 

Velt     . 

Antwerp 

2  gallons 

Velt  (brandy)  

France  

2  gallons. 

Velt     

Paris 

1  9683  gallons. 

Viertel  .  . 

Amsterdam  .  . 

1.9524  gallons. 

THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 


NON-METRIC  UNITS  USED  IN  METRIC  COUNTRIES—  Continued. 


Denominations. 

Where  used. 

American  equivalents. 

Viertel 

Basel     

1.5028  gallons. 

Do 

Bremen     

1.9148  gallons. 

Do 

Hamburg  

1.9074  gallons. 

Do 

Rostock  

1.9  137  gallons.     . 

do            

7.6548  gallons. 

Viertel 

Vienna  

3,7361  gallons. 

Wisnel  frve') 

Hamburg        

29.8811  bushels. 

Yin    .     .     .     .           

China  

2.6667  pounds. 

Zak 

Holland  

2.8378  bushels. 

Regarding  the  use  of  these  units  and  of  this  table,  I  quote  as 
follows  from  three  letters  from  Mr.  Emory,  Chief  of  the  Bureau 
of  Foreign  Commerce,  whose  opportunity  for  obtaining  informa- 
tion on  this  subject  is  unique. 

It  [the  table]  is  in  daily  use  in  this  Bureau  in  the  reduction  of  foreign  weights 
and  measures  to  United  States  equivalents. 

While  the  metric  system  is  legal  in  the  countries  you  mention  [my  reference 
was  to  metric  countries  in  general],  the  old  units  are  also  very  widely  used.  In 
the  statements  of  imports  and  exports,  the  metric  system  is  commonly  employed ; 
in  business  transactions  in  the  interior,  the  other  units. 

In  South  American  countries  especially,  although  the  metric  system  has  been 
introduced  and  is  in  use  for  customs  transactions,  the  non-metric  units,  native  to 
the  countries,  are  often  employed  in  domestic  transactions.  These  units  fre- 
quently appear  in  the  reports  of  Consular  Officers,  and  I  will  mention  a  few. 

The  Spanish  or  Castilian  quintal  of  101.61  pounds  is  used  in  Chile  (Commer- 
cial Relations,  1900,  vol.  i.,  p.  789);  the  measure  "zeroons"  (meaning  un- 
known) occurs  in  the  same  volume,  p  823;  the  arroba,  the  cuadra,  and  the  lino 
are  used  in  Paraguay  (Commercial  Relations,  1899,  vol.  i.,  page  687),  meaning 
10,000  square  yards,  25  pounds,  and  100  yards,  respectively.  The  quintal  in 
Guatemala,  in  the  export  of  coffee,  is  "about  100  pounds"  (Commercial  Rela- 
tions, 1898,  volume  i.,  p.  650) ;  the  finca  is  used  in  Costa  Rica  to  designate  "  any 
area  of  land"  (Commercial  Relations,  1896-97,  p.  531).  The  cantar  is  employed 
in  Sicily  in  the  export  of  sulphur;  it  is  equivalent  to  175  pounds  (Commercial 
Relations,  1901,  vol.  ii.,  p.  429).  These  are  only  some  instances  that  I  happen 
to  recall;  a  search  through  the  Consular  Reports  would  show  many  others.  See 
also  the  Statesman's  Year  Book,  1902,  p.  481 :  "  The  French  metric  system  .  .  . 
is  used  in  official  departments  (in  Brazil),  but  the  ancient  weights  and  measures 
are  still  partly  employed.  They  are  the  libra,  the  arroba,  the  quintal,  etc."  Page 
492 :  "  The  metric  system  is  legally  established  in  Chile  since  1865,  but  the  old 
Spanish  weights  and  measures  are  still  in  use  to  some  extent."  Page  517 :  "  The 
metric  system  was  introduced  into  the  Republic  (of  Colombia)  in  1857 ;  in  custom 
house  business,  the  kilogramme  ...  is  the  standard ;  in  ordinary  commerce  the 
arroba,  carga,  etc.,  are  generally  used."  These  quotations  could  be  multiplied. 
I  send  you  copies  of  the  Commercial  Relations,  above  referred  to,  and  would  re- 
peat that  an  examination  of  the  volumes  will  show  other  instances  of  the  use  of 
native  weights  and  measures. 


TO  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

The  examination  of  Consular  Relations  suggested  by  Mr. 
Emory  has  been  made  by  Mr.  F.  H.  Colvin,  using  the  latest  ob- 
tainable volumes,  those  for  1900  and  1901,  and  with  the  follow- 
ing results  which  were  given  at  the  discussion  of  the  Mechanical 
Engineers : 

4.mong  the  South  American  countries,  which  are  held  up  as 
shining  examples  of  knowing  a  good  thing  in  the  way  of  scientific 
measurements  when  they  see  it,  I  first  found  a  report  from  the 
statistical  office  of  Bolivia.  The  compiler  had  evidently  over- 
looked the  fact  that  this  was  a  metric  country,  for  railroad  ex- 
tensions were  given  in  miles,  mine  products  in  pounds  and  tons, 
and  the  height  of  mountainous  mines  in  feet. 

Reports  from  Peru  give  lumber  in  feet,  mine  products  in  tons, 
while  the  detailed  report  of  the  superintendent  of  the  Central 
Railway,  concerning  his  road,  gives  everything  in  English 
measures. 

Official  reports  from  Uruguay  are  metric,  but  judging  from 
the  Consular  reports,  the  native  units  are  used  in  every-day  life. 
There  is  also  an  exhaustive  statement  by  the  large  house  of  Huf- 
nagel,  Plattier  &  Co.,  in  Paysandu,  Uruguay,  as  to  the  imports 
and  exports,  in  which  feet,  kilos  and  pounds  are  hopelessly  mixed. 

From  Venezuela  there  are  reports  from  Maracaibo  and  Puerto 
Cabello,  and  not  a  mention  of  metric  measure  in  the  lot. 

Consular  reports  from  Mexico  fail  to  mention  metric  measures 
in  a  single  instance  except  when  quoting  government  reports,  in- 
dicating that  its  use  is  entirely  official  instead  of  popular.  Rail- 
road extensions  and  similar  measurements  are  always  given  in  feet. 

Going  to  Spanish  reports  we  find  a  quotation  from  a  Valencia 
paper  pointing  out  the  increased  competition  of  American  fruit 
in  their  home  market,  and  in  France  as  follows :  "  Their  oranges, 
apples,  peaches,  etc.,  reach  Paris  after  traversing  6,000  miles, 
in  a  more  attractive  condition  than  ours  after  a  journey  of  only 
490  miles"  Not  kilometres  but  miles. 

Consul-General  Hay  from  Barcelona  says,  "  that  to  gain  this 
trade  we  must  print  catalogues  in  Spanish,  as  the  Germans  and 
English  do  " — but  he  entirely  neglects  to  mention  the  necessity 
or  advantage  of  having  metric  measures.  Raisins  are  quoted  in 
"  arrobas  "  of  25  pounds  each. 

A  report  of  navigation  from  Trieste,  Austria,  is  in  tons,  rates 
in  shillings  per  ton,  battle-ships  in  tons  displacement.  Now  these 
may  be  metric  tons,  and  as  the  harbor  improvements  are  given 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  71 

partly  in  feet  and  partly  in  metres,  you  can  decide  either  way  you 
like.  Length  of  railways  is  given  in  miles,  while  the  rates  are  in 
kilogrammes.  The  imports  are  in  quintals,  pounds  and  tons — 
makes  a  scientific  system. 

Belgium  makes  a  bad  showing  for  those  advocates  who  think  it 
can  be  assimilated  in  two  or  three  years.  Government  reports  are 
metric  as  a  matter  of  course,  but  commercial  houses  give  imports 
in  pounds,  cords  and  gallons.  Crop  reports  in  the  Antwerp  district 
are  given  in  bushels  and  tons  of  2,240  pounds.  Lumber,  however, 
is  given  in  metres,  while  imports  of  cereals  are  in  bushels.  An- 
other table  giving  the  crops  per  hectare  (2.471  acres),  as  follows: 

Wheat  (in  bushels) 66.21 

Potatoes  (in  kilogrammes) 38,911 

(Note  the  inconveniently  large  figures  owing  to  the  unit  being  so 
small.) 

Beet  roots  and  tobacco  are  also  honored  with  the  scientific 
system,  while  all  the  rest  must  be  content  with  the  old  units. 

Imports  of  wood,  both  from  America  and  other  countries  are 
given  in  cubic  metres,  while  imports  of  rubber  are  in  pounds.  Both 
systems  are  used  all  through,  lumber  being  given  in  cubic  yards 
in  one  place. 

Swedish  reports  give  tables  with  pounds,  metric  tons,  bushels, 
long  tons,  gallons,  pounds  and  hundredweight.  Other  reports  use 
kilos  and  pounds. 

Germany. — In  mentioning  Agrarian  legislation,  bushels  and  hec- 
tolitres, English  tons  and  metric  tons  all  seem  to  have  equal  chance. 
Structural  iron  and  steel  are  quoted  in  sixteenths  and  eighths  of  an 
inch.  Textiles  are  quoted  in  hundredweights. 

Italy. — Imports  at  Leghorn  are  given  in  hundredweights  and 
tons,  in  other  places  in  kilos.  Exports  are  largely  in  pounds.  Wine 
is  quoted  at  so  many  "  lire  "  per  cask  of  100  quarts. 

In  reports  from  Chile,  Valparaiso,  do  not  mention  metric,  but 
figures  are  given  in  pounds,  tons  and  quarts.  In  Iquique  prices 
are  given  in  shillings  per  hundredweight,  and  Spanish  quintals  are 
also  mentioned. 

In  the  report  from  Bogota,  United  States  of  Colombia,  yards  and 
pounds  are  used,  and  there  is  also  a  quotation  from  a  French  paper 
regarding  the  mines  of  Muzo  and  Cosconeg,  in  which  the  distances 
are  given  in  yards  and  miles.  Still  another  report  uses  metric  and 
English  measures  indiscriminately. 


72  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

From  Holland  the  annual  circular  of  the  Hide,  Skin  and 
Leather  Co.  gives  imports  of  hides  in  "  piculs,"  and  translates  it 
into  pounds,  although  official  reports  use  kilogrammes.  Harbor  im- 
provements are  given  in  metres  in  some  places,  and  feet  in  others. 

These  examples  can  be  multiplied  many  times  by  those  who 
have  the  time  to  examine  the  records.  It  should  also  be  noted  that 
these  are  not  old  reports  but  the  latest  obtainable.  I  may  also 
add  that  no  cases  have  been  mentioned  where  there  was  any  chance 
of  confusing  the  English  and  metric  ton,  or  other  measurements 
as  in  tonnage  of  shipping  in  ports  of  metric  countries. 

It  has  been  assumed  that  consuls  give  the  units  in  use  in  the 
country  as  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  any  translations,  and  con- 
suls, as  a  rule,  are  not  given  to  translating  page  after  page  of  dry 
statistics.  In  the  cases  where  native  units  are  given,  this  is  ample 
proof  that  there  was  no  consular  interference,  for  if  translating  it 
would  be  into  English  and  not  into  native  units.* 

Among  mechanical  engineers  no  name  stands  higher  as  a  col- 
lector and  publisher  of  exact  engineering  facts  and  data  than  that 
of  D.  K.  Clark,  whose  Mamial  of  Rules,  Tables  and  Data  for 
Mechanical  Engineers  is  a  monumental  collection  of  that  kind. 
In  his  Mechanical  Engineer's  Pocket  Boole  of  Tables,  Formula, 
Rules  and  Data,  third  edition,  1903,  beginning  on  page  165,  may 
be  found  a  section  giving  in  the  severely  brief  manner  of  an 
engineer's  reference  book  the  leading  facts  regarding  the  weights 
and  measures  of  many  countries.  The  statements  made  substan- 
tiate what  has  been  given  above  regarding  China,  Greece,  Turkey, 
Japan,  Egypt,  Spain,  Mexico,  Cuba,  Brazil,  Venezuela,  Peru, 
Guatemala,  Costa  Rica,  Nicaragua,  San  Salvador  and  Honduras. 

The  following  quotations  give  Mr.  Clark's  statements  regard- 
ing some  of  these  countries: 

China. — "The  chili  of  14.10  English  inches  is  the  legal  standard  in 
the  tariff  settled  by  treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  China,"  etc.,  followed 
by  the  values  of  many  Chinese  units,  including  those  of  surface,  capacity 
and  weight,  none  of  which  are  metric. 

Spain. — "  The  old  system  continues  largely  in  use." 

Turkey. — A  table  of  Turkish  weights  and  measures  is  given  but  no 
mention  is  made  of  the  use  of  the  metric  system. 

Japan. — This  country  is  treated  precisely  like  Turkey. 

*  That  the  English  units  used  are  not  consular  translations  is  shown  by 
the  publication  of  page  after  page  of  government  reports  of  imports  and 
exports  in  metric  units  without  any  attempt  at  translation. 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  73 

Egypt. — "  In  the  old  system  in  general  use  the  pik  is  the  unit  of  length," 
etc. 

Costa  Rica. — "  The  old  weights  and  measures  of  Spain  are  in  general 
use." 

Cuba. — "  The  old  weights  and  measures  of  Spain  are  in  general  use." 

Guatemala. — "  The  old  weights  and  measures  of  Spain  are  in  general 
use." 

Honduras. — "  The  old  weights  and  measures  of  Spain  are  in  general 
use." 

Mexico. — "  The  old  Spanish  measures  are  still  in  use." 

Nicaragua. — "  The  system  of  weights  and  measures  is  that  of  the  old 
weights  and  measures  of  Spain." 

Peru. — "  The  French  metric  system  was  established  in  1860  but  is  not 
yet  in  common  use  except  for  the  customs  tariff." 

Venezuela. — "  The  system  in  general  use  is  the  same  as  that  of  Co- 
lombia." 

The  following  extracts  relate  to  countries  that  have  not  previ- 
ously been  mentioned: 

Bolivia.— "The  vara  =  .927  yard;  the  gallon  —.74  imperial  gallon;  the 
arroba  =  25.30  pounds  avoirdupois;  the  arroba  for  wines  and  spirits  =  6.7 
imperial  gallons;  the  ounce  =  1.014  ounce  avoirdupois;  16  ounces  =  1 
libra  =  1.014  pound."  (Mr.  Clark  has  nothing  to  say  about  the  use  of 
the  metric  system  in  Bolivia.) 

Chile. — "  The  French  metric  system  has  been  legally  established  in 
Chile;  but  the  ancient  weights  and  measures  are  still  in  use.  These  are 
the  same  as  those  of  Bolivia." 

Colombia. — "  The  French  metric  system  is  legally  established  in  Co- 
lombia. In  custom  house  business  the  kilogram  is  the  standard  of  weight. 
The  old  weights  and  measures  continue  in  use  in  ordinary  commerce." 
[And  then  follows  a  list  of  the  old  units.] 

St.  Domingo. — The  old  Spanish  weights  and  measures  are  in  general 
use.  The  French  metric  system  also  is  in  use." 

Uruguay.—"  The  French  metric  system  has  been  officially  adopted  but 
it  is  not  in  general  use.  The  old  weights  and  measures  are  the  same  as 
those  of  the  Argentine  Republic." 

Portugal. — "  The  French  metric  system  is  the  legal  standard.  The  old 
measures  principally  still  in  use  are:  the  libra  =  1.012  pounds;  the  almude 
of  Lisbon  =  3.7  gallons;  the  almude  of  Oporto  —  5.6  gallons,"  etc. 

Roumania. — "  The  French  metric  system  is  in  force  in  Roumania.  Turk- 
ish weights  and  measures  are  largely  in  use  by  the  people." 

Switzerland. — "  The  French  metric  system  has  been  generally  adopted 
in  Switzerland  with  some  changes  of  names  and  sub-divisions: 

Length:          10      zoll  =  1  fuss  (3  decimetres;* 
6     fuss  =  1  klafter  * 

*  Note  the  strictly  decimal  ratios:  1  fuss  =  3  decimetres;  1  klafter  = 
18  decimetres;  1  square  fuss  =  9  square  decimetres  and  (save  the  mark!) 
16  ounces  =  half  a  kilogram!  !  ! 


74:  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

10     fuss  =  1  ruthe 
1,600  ruthen  -  1  lien 
Surface:   100  sq.       fuss  =  1  sq.  ruth 
400  sq.  ruthen  =  1  juchart 
Weight:  16  unzen  =  1  pfund   (%  kilogram)."* 

Java. — "  The  legal  weights  and  measures  of  Dutch  India  are  those  of 
the  Netherlands.  In  Java  other  measures  are  in  common  use.  The  duim 
=  1.3  inches;  the  ell  =27.08  inches;  the  djong  of  4  banu  =  7.015  acres" 
[etc.,  etc.,  for  measures  of  weight  and  capacity]. 

Additional  facts  regarding  the  use  of  old  units  in  metric  coun- 
tries are  given  in  the  following  letter  from  the  Collector  of  the 
Port  of  New  York: 

I  have  to  state  that  this  office  is  in  receipt  of  a  large  number  of  invoices 
received  from  France,  wherein  the  measurements  of  the  textile  fabrics 
covered  by  said  invoices  are  expressed  in  aunes,  and  also  from  Switzer- 
land covering  embroideries  wherein  the  measurements  are  expressed  in 
aunes. 

I  have  caused  to  be  taken  from  the  files  of  this  office  a  number  of  in- 
voices from  Spain,  Italy,  Holland  and  Belgium,  and  find  as  follows:  Prom 
Spain,  233  invoices,  thirty-seven  of  which  the  weights  are  expressed  therein 
as  pounds,  the  remainder  being  made  out  according  to  the  metric  system; 
from  Italy,  fifteen  invoices,  the  weights  therein  expressed  in  the  metric 
system;  from  Holland,  fifty-five  invoices,  fourteen  of  which  the  weights 
are  expressed  therein  as  pounds;  eleven  of  the  fourteen  are  expressed  as 
pounds  avoirdupois,  and  the  other  three  invoices  not  stating  the  kind  of 
pound,  the  remainder  of  the  invoices  being  made  out  according  to  the 
metric  system;  from  Belgium,  one  hundred  and  twenty-six  invoices,  four- 
teen of  which  the  weights  are  expressed  in  pounds,  thirty-one  in  feet  or 
inches,  two  in  yards  and  one  in  gallons,  the  remainder  being  made  out 
according  to  the  metric  system. 

In  conclusion,  I  have  to  state  that  in  many  of  the  invoices  received  at 
this  office  from  countries  in  South  America,  the  weights  are  made  out  in 
the  old  Spanish  pound. 

And  now,  kind  reader,  how  much  remains  of  that  imposing 
list  of  forty-three  "  metric  "  countries  given  on  page  22  ?  Those 
in  which  the  old  units  have  been  shown  to  be  in  use  are  indi- 
cated by  a  dash  at  the  left.  Those  that  are  unmarked  remain  for 
future  investigation. 

Is  it  not  perfectly  clear  that  the  metric  advocates  have  drawn 
on  their  imaginations  for  supposed  facts,  that  the  claims  made 
for  the  universality  of  the  system  are  based,  to  use  the  most 

*  See  note  on  preceding  page. 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  75 

charitable  possible  construction,  on  simple  assumption  and 
credulity  ? 

The  fatal  mistake  of  the  metric  advocates  and  the  weakness  of 
their  case  lies  in  their  assumption  that  the  statute  book  is  an  index 
of  the  practice  of  the  people. 

The  arguments  for  the  saving  of  time  in  calculation,,  for  the 
simplification  of  our  weights  and  measures  and  for  the  saving  of 
time  by  school  children  are  all  based  on  the  tacit  assumption  that 
the  old  units  are  to  disappear.  As  they  have  not  done  so  else- 
where they  will  not  do  so  here,  and  every  one  of  these  arguments 
falls  to  the  ground.  The  whole  metric  case  is  riven  into  shreds 
by  the  simple  fact  that  these  old  units  will  not  die. 

Shall  we  carry  our  heads  in  the  clouds  of  speculation,  or  shall 
we  consult  the  experience  of  others?  Shall  we  join  in  the  chase 
of  this  will-o'-the-wisp  which  no  nation  has  ever  caught?  That 
and  that  only  is  the  metric  question  of  the  hour.  Arguments 
based  on  the  "  beautiful  interrelation  and  correlation  of  the 
units  "  have  little  more  application  than  a  philosophical  specula- 
tion regarding  the  appearance  of  the  back  side  of  the  moon. 


REASONS  FOE  THE  FAILURE  OF  COMPULSORY  LAWS. 

The  reasons  why  compulsion  has  failed  and  must  always  fail 
to  do  more  than  bring  about  a  superficial  use  of  the  system,  and 
thus,  in  the  words  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  "  increase  the  diver- 
sities which  it  was  the  intention  to  abolish/'  are  not  far  to  seek. 

The  law  may  undoubtedly  prescribe  the  units  of  weight  and 
measure  that,  in  the  absence  of  understanding  to  the  contrary, 
shall  be  used  in  commercial  transactions,  just  as  it  may  prescribe 
the  units  of  value  that  shall  be  used  in  the  same  transactions, 
but  in  any  country  in  which  the  individual  has  any  rights  what- 
ever it  can  have  no  jurisdiction  over  measurements  made  in 
factories  in  advance  of  the  sale  of  the  product.  In  the  case  of 
manufactured  goods  made  for  the  open  market  they  are,  during 
manufacture  and  until  sold,  the  property  of  the  maker.  There 
being  no  transaction  between  individuals,  the  goods  may  obvi- 
ously be  made  according  to  the  maker's  own  sweet  will,  provided 
the  future  customer  will  accept  them.  In  the  case  of  machinery 
made  for  the  open  market,  the  law  may  require  that  such  partic- 
ulars as  appear  in  contracts  relating  to  the  capacity,  the  weight 
and  the  over-all  dimensions  shall  be  given  in  certain  units,  but 
it  can  have  no  control  over  the  many-fold  greater  number  of 
constructive  measurements  made  while  the  machine  was  the 
property  of  the  maker  and  that  do  not  appear  in  any  contract.  In 
the  case  of  machinery  made  to  order  a  greater  number  of  dimen- 
sions usually  appear  in  the  contract,  but  even  these  are  few  com- 
pared with  the  dimensions  of  constructive  details,  and  hence, 
even  in  such  cases,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  law  is  extremely  nar- 
row. Thus  we  see  the  explanation  of  the  apparent  anomaly  that 
the  fabrics  that  are  sold  over  the  shop  counters  of  Paris  by  the 
metre  are  made  in  the  mills  of  Lyons  by  the  aune. 

Again,  the  thousands  of  measurements  made  by  mechanics  in 
the  erection  of  buildings  do  not  appear  in  any  paper  connected 
with  the  contract  for  the  erection  of  the  buildings,  or  with  the 
sale  thereof.  It  is  manifestly  of  no  importance  to  the  owner 
whether  the  dimensions  of  the  bricks,  the  thickness  of  the  lumber 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  77 

or  the  cross  sections  of  the  timbers  be  measured  in  metric  or 
other  units,  and  hence  we  see  the  reason  why,  as  stated  by  Mr. 
Hess  (page  39,  ante),  German  building  mechanics  "  nearly  uni- 
versally use  the  Rhenish  inch." 

Again,  even  in  commercial  transactions  the  law  may  specify 
those  units  only  which  are  used  in  the  measurements  made  by 
the  merchant.  In  the  sale  of  one-inch  bar  iron  by  the  kilogram 
in  Mexico  we  see  the  effect  of  the  law  in  compelling  the  merchant 
to  sell  his  iron  by  the  kilogram  instead  of  the  pound.  The  figure 
for  the  weight  forms  the  multiplier  which  must  be  multiplied  by 
the  price  per  unit  in  order  to  obtain  the  amount  of  the  charge. 
This  unit  the  law  may  regulate,  but  it  can  do  no  more.  The 
figure  for  the  diameter  is  merely  descriptive  of  the  goods,  and 
over  it  the  law  does  not  extend. 

The  use  of  English  screw  and  pipe  standards  in  Germany  is 
another  illustration  of  the  same  kind.  The  purchase  of  these 
commodities  must  be  by  the  kilogramme  and  the  metre,  but  their 
dimensions  may  be  in  any  units  that  are  satisfactory  to  the  con- 
sumer. The  distinction  that  runs  through  all  these  illustrations 
is  that  while  the  commercial  units  are  metric  the  mill  units  are 
not. 

It  is  thus  plain  that  while  the  law  may  force  the  new  units  into 
use,  it  cannot  force  the  old  ones  out  of  use.  Its  effect,  therefore, 
is  merely  to  add  to  whatever  confusion  may  have  prevailed  before 
its  action  was  invoked. 

We  thus  see  why,  in  the  words  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  "  The 
legislator  finishes  by  increasing  the  diversities  which  it  was  his 
intention  to  abolish,  and  by  loading  his  statute  books  only  with 
the  impotence  of  authority  and  the  uniformity  of  confusion. '* 


KEASONS  FOE  THE  LENGTH  OE  THE  TBANSITION 

PEKIOD. 

An  essential  feature  of  the  scientific  method  is  the  explanation 
of  the  facts  as  found,  and  it  is  easy  to  show  why  the  period  of 
transition  must  be  so  long.  The  pamphlet  containing  the  testi- 
mony before  the  House  committee  contains  a  letter  from  the 
Brown  &  Sharpe  Manufacturing  Company,  which  contains  a 
sentence  embodying  more  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  the  subject 
than  all  the  pro-metric  testimony.  I  quote  (page  190) :  "  The 
question  of  weights  deals  rather  with  the  future,  but  .  »  . 
linear  measures  are  tied  irrevocably  to  the  past."  The  man  who 
wrote  that  sentence  was  inspired,  and  for  a  time  it  will  become 
my  text. 

If  this  system  were  made  compulsory  to-morrow,  and  the 
people  were  to  receive  it  with  enthusiasm,  the  gas  pipes  in  the 
ceilings  of  our  homes  alone  would  keep  the  old  system  alive  for 
fifty  years.  In  the  following  pages  it  will  be  shown  that  the 
metric  system  necessitates  metric  sizes.  Now  make  the  gas  tips 
which  we  replace  so  often  with  metric  threads,  and  there  isn't  a 
chandelier  in  this  country  that  will  take  them.  Make  the 
chandeliers  with  metric  threads,  and  there  isn't  a  gas  pipe  end 
projecting  from  a  single  ceiling  in  this  country  which  will  take 
them.  A  fair  question  to  ask  here  is,  how  long  does  it  take  on  the 
average  for  a  gas  pipe  to  wear  out  ?  Our  friends  tell  us  that  for 
a  time  we  will  use  transition  fittings  with  English  threads  at  one 
end  and  metric  threads  at  the  other,  but  this  begs  the  whole 
question.  The  transition  fittings  must  be  made.  The  length  of 
the  pipe  does  not  alter  the  thread  or  the  tools  for  making  it.  The 
tools  and  the  equipment  must  be  preserved.  But  why  make  a 
transition  fitting  at  extra  cost  and  serving  no  purpose  except  to 
furnish  an  added  joint  to  leak  ?  We  may  be  sure  that  so  long  as 
pipes  with  English  threads  endure  in  our  ceilings,  chandeliers 
will  be  made  with  English  threads  to  fit  them.  Why  is  this  ? 
Because  "  measures  of  length  are  tied  irrevocably  to  the  past." 

In  the  discussion  before  the  Mechanical  Engineers,  Mr.  Gus 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  79 

C.  Kenning  endeavored  to  minimize  the  change  in  gas  pipe 
standards  by  showing  how  trifling  a  thing  is  a  transition  nipple, 
thereby  acknowledging  that  the  change  is  to  be  made. 

There  is  no  better  illustration  of  the  confusion  of  the  transition 
period  than  that  furnished  by  pipe  fittings,  because  not  only  must 
we  have  two  standards  of  threads  and  fittings  on  our  hands,  but 
a  third  and  far  more  numerous  set  of  transition  fittings  as  long 
as  existing  pipes  endure.  Our  existing  fittings  are  numerous 
enough,  but  they  must  not  only  be  duplicated  in  metric  fittings 
but  more  than  duplicated  in  transition  fittings.  It  is  easy  to 
make  light  of  a  transition  nipple,  but  the  proposition  involves 
transition  ells,  tees  and  other  fittings.  For  each  straight  tee  of 
which  we  now  have  one,  we  should  require  during  the  transition 
period  the  following  combinations: 


M      M       E      E       MM       E      E       ME       EM 


M  E  E  M  M  E 


For  each  simple  reducing  bushing  we  would  require  four  com- 
binations thus :  English  inside  and  outside ;  metric  inside  and  out- 
side; English  outside  and  metric  inside;  and  English  inside  and 
metric  outside.  For  each  plain  ell  that  we  now  have  we  should 
need  three  and  for  each  reducing  ell,  four.  If  the  reader  will  go 
to  a  pipe-fitting  factory  or  store,  note  the  number  of  fittings  neces- 
sary to  make  an  assortment  and  reflect  that  during  this  transition 
period  this  number  will  be  multiplied  by  not  less  than  three  and 
probably  by  four,  he  will  recognize  what  Mr.  Henning's  playful 
suggestion  grows  into.  I  have  often  said,  and  I  believe  it  to  be 
true,  that  all  the  advantages  of  the  metric  system  combined  would 
not  recompense  us  for  the  confusion  of  changing  our  standard  of 
pipes  and  pipe  threads  alone. 

The  fact  that  actual  pipe  sizes  are  other  than  the  nominal  sizes 
is  a  favorite  citation  of  the  metric  advocates  but  it  has  no  applica- 
tion whatever.  The  trouble  lies  in  changing  an  established  stand- 
ard. Entirely  apart  from  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  a  friend 
once  remarked,  "  Our  pipe  and  pipe-thread  standard  is,  per  se, 
about  as  bad  as  it  could  be,  but,  established  as  it  is,  the  man  who 
would  attempt  to  change  it  deserves  to  be  hung." 

Every  factory  contains  overhead  lines  of  shafting  which  with 
the  pulleys  to  fit  are  a  standardized  line  of  manufacture.  With 


80  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

standard  fits  pulleys  may  be  changed  from  place  to  place  by 
simply  removing  and  replacing.  Put  up  a  metric  line  shaft,  and 
not  a  pulley  in  this  country  will  fit  it,  nor  will  any  metric  pulley 
fit  an  English  line  shaft.  A  line  of  shafting  was  scarcely  ever 
known  to  wear  out.  I  know  one  which  is  forty  years  old,  and 
it  was,  I  believe,  second-hand  when  I  made  its  acquaintance.  So 
long  as  existing  shafts  endure  we  may  be  sure  English  dimension 
pulleys  will  be  made  to  fit  them.  Why?  Again,  because  "  meas- 
ures of  length  are  tied  irrevocably  to  the  past." 

They  tell  us  that  we  may  continue  to  use  the  old  units  in  re- 
pairs. Consider  the  couplings  which  connect  the  air-brake  hose 
on  all  railroad  cars.  A  new  coupling  on  one  car  connects  with 
the  old  one  on  another  car.  The  time  will  never  come  when  that 
can  be  changed,  unless  they  are  all  changed  at  once.  Why?  Be- 
cause "  measures  of  length  are  tied  irrevocably  to  the  past." 

At  the  hearings  of  the  House  committee  a  curious  fact  was 
developed  (Mr.  Buck,  page  145).  The  older  part  of  Philadel- 
phia was  laid  out  by  a  defective  surveyor's  chain  which,  instead 
of  being  100  feet  long,  was  in  reality  100  feet  3  inches,  and  in 
that  part  of  the  city  to-day  100  feet  3  inches  is  legally  100  feet. 
By  a  curious  process  of  reasoning  this  was  made  to  appear  as  an 
argument  for  the  metric  system,  though  how  the  adoption  of  that 
system  is  to  change  the  layout  of  the  streets  I  do  not  quite  see. 
Why  does  this  anomaly,  this  nuisance,  persist,  and  why  is  it  im- 
possible to  get  rid  of  it?  Because  "  measures  of  length  are  tied 
irrevocably  to  the  past." 

There  is,  however,  another  possible  explanation  of  the  fact  that 
the  people  continue  to  use  the  old  units  after,  in  France,  a 
century  of  experience  with  the  new,  namely  that  they  prefer  the 
old. 

These  two  explanations  exhaust  the  possibilities — either  the 
change  is  too  difficult  to  be  made  or  a  century  of  experience  has 
not  sufficed  to  demonstrate  the  superiority  of  the  metric  system. 
Of  these  two  possible  explanations  the  metric  advocates  may  take 
their  choice. 


SCIENTIFIC  AND  INDUSTRIAL  MEASUREMENTS. 

Nothing  is  more  important  at  this  stage  of  the  controversy 
than  an  explanation  of  the  undoubted  fact  that  while  scientific 
men  favor  the  metric  system  manufacturers  and  constructors 
oppose  it.  This  explanation  lies  in  the  fundamentally  different 
character  of  scientific  and  industrial  measurements: 

The  scientific  use  of  measurements  consists  in  measuring  existing 
tilings  •  the  industrial  use  of  measurements  consists  in  making  thirty* 
to  a  required  size. 

A  typical  illustration  of  the  scientific  use  of  weight  and  meas- 
ure is  found  in  the  chemist's  balance.  The  chemist  places  a  sub- 
stance on  one  pan  and  proceeds  to  balance  it  with  his  weights 
and  rider.  This  is  the  exact  opposite  of  the  grocer's  use  of  his 
scales.  The  grocer  places  his  weight  in  the  scale  pan  first  and 
then  proceeds  to  balance  it  with  a  required  amount  of  material. 
The  chemist  finds  the  weight  of  a  given  mass  of  material;  the 
grocer  finds  the  mass  of  material  which  shall  have  a  given  weight. 

Because  of  this  difference  the  grocer  has  but  few  weights. 
He  deals  with  halves  and  quarters  of  a  pound  or  ounce  as 
the  case  may  be,  and  with  no  other  fractions  whatever.  The 
chemist,  on  the  contrary,  must  be  prepared  to  deal  with  all  pos- 
sible fractions  and  with  the  same  degree  of  facility  in  all  cases. 

This  difference  runs  through  all  scientific  and  industrial  appli- 
cations of  weight  and  measure.  As  in  the  case  of  the  chemist, 
the  scientist  must  always  be  prepared  to  handle  all  possible 
quantities  within  the  range  and  capacity  of  his  apparatus.  In 
manufacturing,  on  the  contrary,  as  in  the  case  of  the  grocer's  few 
weights,  it  is  the  starting  point  of  all  organized  industry  that 
of  the  immense  number  of  possible  sizes  but  few  shall  be  actu- 
ally used.  Thus,  measuring  to  thousandths  only,  we  might  have, 
between  one  and  two  inches,  a  thousand  diameters  of  screw 
threads,  whereas,  in  point  of  fact,  of  standard  threads  we  have 
but  eight,  while  of  standard  shafting  we  have  but  four,  and  of 
gas  and  water  pipe  but  three. 

This  limitation  of  manufactured  things  to  a  few  only  of  many 


82  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

possible  sizes  characterizes  all  branches  of  manufacturing  and  has 
always  done  so.  We  see  it  in  our  wearing  apparel.  Collars,  cuffs, 
shoes,  hats  and  gloves  all  illustrate  the  same  principle. 

Moreover,  the  comparatively  few  sizes  which  are  thus  used  in 
manufacturing  are  the  result  of  deliberate  selection.  That  is, 
the  constructor  deliberately  chooses  the  sizes  which  he  shall  meas- 
ure while  the  scientist  has  no  choice,  for,  as  has  been  stated,  he 
is  quite  as  likely  to  be  called  upon  to  measure  one  size  as  another. 
When  we  inquire  into  the  sizes  which  in  this  exercise  of  choice 
have  been  selected  for  use  in  manufacturing  we  find  that  man- 
kind has  always  and  everywhere  selected  those  parts  of  units 
which  are  obtained  by  successive  halvings,  a  striking  feature  of 
which  is  that  they  are  expressed  more  clearly  and  more  simply 
by  vulgar  fractions  than  by  decimals,  as  will  be  seen  by  the 
following  illustrative  table : 

i=  .25  f=  .75 

i=.125  |  =.375 

-iV=  .0625  f6=  .1875 

&  =  .03125  &=  .09375 

The  vulgar  fractions  are  the  simpler,  whether  we  regard  them 
from  the  mechanical  standpoint  of  the  number  of  figures  involved 
or  whether  we  regard  them  from  the  much  more  important  stand- 
point of  the  clearness  of  the  impression  which  they  make  upon 
the  mind.  The  vulgar  fractions  impress  their  meaning  upon  the 
mind  at  once  while  the  decimals  do  not  until  after  a  distinct 
mental  effort.  The  average  man  makes  no  attempt  to  form  a 
mental  impression  of  the  value  of  the  decimals,  but  reads  them 
mechanically  as  the  proofreader  does,  thus :  "  point  naught  three 
one  two  five/'  giving  up  the  attempt  to  form  a  mental  picture  of 
their  value  in  advance. 

The  reason  why  the  vulgar  fractions  are  the  simpler  is  that 
they  are  in  their  lowest  terms  while  the  decimals  are  far  from 
their  lowest  terms.  When  we  say  that  we  will  use  nothing  but 
decimals  we  simply  deny  to  ourselves  the  right  to  reduce  fractions 
to  their  lowest  terms.  We  say  in  effect  that  we  will  use  no 
denominator  between  ten  and  a  hundred  and  none  between  a 
hundred  and  a  thousand. 

Even  in  addition,  in  'which  decimals  possess  an  undoubted 
superiority  over  vulgar  fractions  in  general,  they  have  a  close 
competitor  in  binary  fractions  which,  among  vulgar  fractions, 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  83 

form  a  class  by  themselves.  The  chief  reason  why  decimals  pos- 
sess this  superiority  in  addition  is  that  they  avoid  reduction  to  a 
common  denominator,  but  this  is  equally  true  of  binary  frac- 
tions, the  addition  of  which  is  closely  analogous  to  the  addition 
of  decimals,  the  chief  difference  being  that  we  carry  by  twos 
instead  of  by  tens,  as  every  draughtsman  knows. 

It  may  be  said  with  perfect  truth  that  if  we  used  the  decimal 
scale  we  would  not  have  the  above  expressions.  This,  however, 
does  not  meet  the  point.  Mankind  prefers  to  use  in  construc- 
tion not  the  decimal  scale  but  the  binary  scale,  and  for  the  sizes 
thus  obtained  the  vulgar  fractions  are  the  simpler.  Certain  sizes 
are  expressed  more  simply  by  decimal  than  by  vulgar  fractions 
while  others  are  expressed  more  simply  by  vulgar  fractions  than 
by  decimals.  The  former  are  preferred  for  measuring  things 
while  the  latter  are  preferred  for  making  things. 

The  reason  for  the  difference  in  the  attitude  of  the  two  parties 
is  now  clear.  With  the  miscellaneous  quantities  with  which  he 
must  deal  the  scientist  would  find  vulgar  fractions  almost  unman- 
ageable, and  he  is  practically  driven  to  the  use  of  decimals,  while 
the  constructor,  through  his  power  of  choice,  selects  such  sizes 
that  decimals  may  be  avoided. 

This  limitation  of  manufactured  things  to  a  few  of  many  pos- 
sible sizes  has  many  important  results.  Having  but  few  sizes,  it 
is  possible  to  spend  an  amount  in  standardizing  each  one  that 
would  be  impossible  if  the  number  were  largely  increased,  and 
we  thus  have  the  feature  of  standardization  which  is  entirely 
foreign  to  scientific  measurements — such  a  thing  as  a  standard 
weight  or  measure  being  exactly  what  the  scientific  measurer  does 
not  expect  to  find.  Again,  with  this  introduction  of  standard 
gauges  workshop  measurements  came  to  be  as  they  are  to-day, 
essentially  the  duplication  of  standards,  to  which  again  there  is 
nothing  to  compare  in  the  scientific  use  of  measurements. 

The  further  the  comparison  is  pushed  the  more  unlike  do  scien- 
tific and  industrial  measurements  become. 

The  constructor's  exercise  of  choice  in  the  measurements  which 
he  shall  make  explains  the  difference  between  the  experiences  of 
constructors  and  of  scientists  in  the  comparative  economy  of 
time  in  calculations  due  to  the  use  of  the  two.  systems.  In  a  suc- 
ceeding chapter  we  shall  see  the  experiences  of  Mr.  Linnard,  Mr. 
Hess,  Mr.  Reed  and  Mr.  Eeymann,  who  with  unexcelled  oppor- 
tunities for  making  comparisons,  have  been  unable  to  find  the 


84  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

saving  of  time  in  engineering  and  mechanical  calculations  which 
is  claimed  for  the  metric  system,  while  the  testimony  of  scientific 
men  is  uniformly  to  the  contrary.  With  the  quantities  with 
which  he  has  to  deal,  the  scientific  man  finds  great  economy  of 
labor  by  the  use  of  decimals,  especially  in  the  addition  and 
averaging  of  data  from  observations,  of  which  he  has  much  to  do, 
while  the  constructor,  exercising  the  liberty  of  choice  in  the  sizes 
with  which  he  deals,  selects  those  in  the  handling  of  which 
decimals,  even  in  addition,  give  no  appreciable  advantage.  Again, 
the  interrelations  and  correlations  of  the  units  are  of  some  im- 
portance in  the  laboratory,  while  they  are  of  little  or  no  import- 
ance in  the  engineer's  office. 

"  For  practical  purposes  the  relation  of  the  specific  gravity  of  water  to 
the  units  of  weight,  and  measure  is,  for  all  purposes  outside  the  laboratory, 
of  about  the  same  practical  application  as  the  relation  between  the  metre 
and  the  circumference  of  the  earth." 

Much  use  has  been  made  of  the  employment  by  civil  engineers 
of  decimal  divisions  of  the  foot.  This  use  is  limited  to  surveying 
— that  is,  measuring — and  to  calculations  based  thereon.  In. 
bridge  and  structural  work  the  civil  engineer  divides  his  foot  into 
inches.  His  work  comprises  to  an  unusual  degree  the  two  func- 
tions of  measuring  and  making.  For  the  former  he  follows  the 
practice  of  the  scientist,  while  for  the  latter  he  follows  the  practice 
of  all  other  constructors.  So  far  from  his  practice  being  an  in- 
dorsement of  decimal  divisions,  it  serves  only  to  emphasize  the 
distinction  between  measuring  and  making. 

Whatever  may  be  the  explanation  of  the  preference  of  mankind 
for  binary  divisions,  the  fact  is  universal.  To  the  scientific  man 
who  looks  upon  survival  in  the  struggle  for  existence  as  at  least 
presumptive  evidence  of  fitness,  and  upon  failure  to  survive  as 
presumptive  evidence  of  unfitness,  it  would  appear  to  others  to  be 
a  little  difficult  for  him  to  reconcile  his  belief  in  the  superiority  of 
decimal  divisions  with  the  fact  that  no  one  can  be  induced  to  use 
them  in  construction  except  by  the  force  of  law. 


SCIENTIFIC  AND  INDUSTRIAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

The  scientific  man  being,  from  our  present  standpoint,  essen- 
tially a  measurer,  we  should  expect  him  in  this  discussion  to  give 
undue  prominence  to  the  difficulties  of  the  measurer,  and  we  find 
that  not  only  is  this  the  case  but  that,  more  unjustly  still,  he  sub- 
stantially ignores  all  other  difficulties. 

The  chief  difficulty  which  the  measurer  has  to  face  is  the  psycho- 
logical difficulty,  that  is,  learning  to  think  in  a  new  set  of  units, 
and  he  uniformly  considers  this  as  the  chief  difficulty  which 
others  have  to  face,  although  it  is,  in  fact,  near  the  bottom  of  the 
constructor's  list. 

The  chief  difficulties  which  the  scientific  man  must  face  in 
connection  with  this  change  are  those  growing  out  of  a  change 
in  the  set  of  units  with  which  he  measures  things.  The  con- 
structor, on  the  contrary,  must  face  not  only  these  but  the 
thousandfold  more  important  difficulties  growing  out  of  a  change 
in  the  set  of  sizes  by  which  he  makes  things.  In  scientific  work 
this  change  involves  a  change  in  measuring  instruments  only, 
while  in  industrial  work  it  involves  also  a  change  in  the  thing 
measured — that  is,  in  the  sizes  of  the  things  made. 

This  change  in  the  set  of  sizes  to  which  things  are  made  is 
the  physical  difficulty  of  the  manufacturer,  and  it  is  this  which 
all  scientific  discussions  of  this  subject  substantially  ignore. 

No  better  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  scientific  men 
imagine  their  own  chief  difficulty  to  be  also  the  chief  difficulty 
of  others  could  be  given  than  the  following  statement  made  by 
Professor  Stratton  at  the  hearings  of  the  House  Committee  (page 
153): 

"  Let  us  take  for  example  the  most  serious  objection  of  all,  which  is 
that  we  have  learned  to  think  in  the  old  system  of  weights  and  measures." 

Again  Dr.  Pritchett,  at  the  discussion  of  the  Mechanical  En- 
gineers, said : 

"  The  argument  for  the  preservation  of  old  and  inconvenient  standards 
rests  on  no  other  basis  than  this  inertia  of  the  general  mass  of  mankind." 


86  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

Again  Lord  Kelvin  has  said: 

"  I  believe  that  in  a  fortnight  people  would  become  so  accustomed  to 
the  perfect  simplicity  and  easy  working  under  the  metrical  system  that 
they  will  feel  that,  instead  of  its  being  a  labor  to  pass  from  one  system  to 
the  other,  it  will  be  less  than  no  labor." 

What  the  above  shows  in  sniall  compass  may  be  seen  in  much 
larger  compass  in  "  The  Metric  System  of  Weights  and  Meas- 
ures" by  Dr.  F.  A.  P.  Barnard,  which,  from  beginning  to  end,  is 
a  measurer's  argument.  There  could  scarcely  be  a  better  illus- 
tration of  the  manner  in  which  a  man  may  discuss  a  subject  to 
the  end  as  he  thinks  with  scarcely  so  much  as  a  recognition  of  the 
chief  point  at  issue.* 

The  chief  difficulty  of  this  change  lies  in  the  changing  of  con- 
structive sizes  of  which  all  scientific  discussions  fail  to  recognize 
not  only  the  importance  but,  as  a  rule,  even  the  existence.  The 
proposition  before  the  country  is  that  we  adopt  this  system  in 
making  things.  It  should  be  settled  by  those  who  have  the 
problems  to  face  and  the  bills  to  pay.  The  attempt  to  bring  about 
a  change  in  the  system  of  factory  measurements  by  those  who 
have  no  knowledge  of  the  difficulties  involved  is  a  simple  im- 
pertinence. The  attempt  to  foist  this  thing  upon  the  industrial 
world  by  the  scientific  and  political  worlds  will  yet  be  looked 
upon  as  the  monumental  piece  of  assurance  of  the  nineteenth 
century. 

Much  effort  has  been  expended  in  showing  that  workmen  ex- 
perience little  difficulty  in  using  metric  scales,  and  there  is  no 
reason  why  they  should.  The  psychological  difficulty  from  the 
designer's  standpoint — that  is,  the  formation  of  mechanical  judg- 
ment of  dimensions  in  millimeters,  is,  however,  another  matter. 
Thus  Mr.  Henry  Hess  tells  me  that  after  four  years  constant  use 
of  the  system  as  the  chief  designer  in  the  drawing  office  of  a 
German  machine  shop,  he  still  found  himself  without  such  judg- 
ment, and  Mr.  J.  H.  Ball  (page  54,  ante)  says,  "  After  four  and  a 
half  years  in  a  professedly  metric  country  the  English  system  is 
still  to  me  the  easier." 

The  magnitude  of  the  psychological  difficulty  in  another  aspect 
is  completely  confessed  by  at  least  one  metric  advocate.  In  the 

*  The  same  remark  applies  to  "  The  Coming  of  the  Kilogram  "  by  Mr.  H. 
O.  Arnold  Poster,  which  ignores  the  real  difficulties  of  the  problem  in  a 
manner  that  is  really  sublime. 


THE   METRIC   FALLACY.  87 

Proces-Verbal  de  la  Seance  du  ler  Mai,  1893,  of  the  Societe  des 
Ingenieurs  Civils  de  France,  I  find  Captain  Mahan's  remarks 
reported  thus: 

"  Although  he  is  an  earnest  partisan  of  the  system,  which  he  has  used 
freely  for  thirty  years,  he  always  finds  difficulty  in  thinking  in  the 
system.  Stating  resistances  in  kilogrammes  per  square  centimetre  conveys 
no  meaning  to  his  mind;  it  is  necessary  to  convert  the  expression  into 
pounds  per  square  inch." 

UNIVERSITY 


THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  NECESSI- 
TATES ABANDONING  MECHANICAL  STANDARDS. 

As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  leaders  of  this  movement  have 
no  knowledge  of  mechanical  standards  nor  of  the  difficulty  of 
changing  them,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that,  so  far  as  they  have 
considered  the  matter  at  all,  they  expect  existing  standards  to  be 
retired  as  a  matter  of  course.  Thus  Mr.  Shaffroth,  in  question- 
ing Admiral  Melville  at  the  hearings  of  the  House  Committee 
(pages  118,  119)  said  (the  admiral's  answers  are  omitted)  : 

Do  you  not  think  that  a  truly  international  system  of  screws,  nuts,  bolts, 
etc.,  would  be  desirable?  Is  not  the  absence  of  such  a  universal  system  at  present 
due  to  the  fact  that  England  and  America  have  not  yet  adopted  the  metric  sys- 
tem? Would  not  the  adoption  of  the  metric  unit  as  the  basis  of  the  dimensions 
of  screw  threads,  and  the  adoption  of  the  American  form  as  the  standard,  be  a 
fair  concession  from  both  sides? 

Again,  Mr.  Stratron  testified  (page  155) : 

A  change  to  the  metric  system  of  weights  and  measures  would  undoubtedly 
bring  about,  in  time,  a  change  in  our  system  of  screw  threads,  but  only  at  the 
suggestion  and  convenience  of  manufacturers  and  engineers,  as  heretofore. 

This  "  convenience  of  manufacturers  "  will  be  reached  when 
the  use  of  a  mixed  system  has  become  no  longer  tolerable,  for 
this  country  will  not  change  its  screw  threads  until  compelled 
to  do  so.  Of  all  the  difficulties  of  the  subject,  the  greatest  centre 
about  screw  threads,  and  our  friends  show  here  a  distinct  disposi- 
tion to  "  hedge."  Their  action,  however,  is  nothing  but  con- 
venient postponement  and  evasion,  which  will  not  do.  They 
draw  pictures  of  the  danger  of  delay  (Mr.  Shaffroth,  page  44). 
They  point  out  how  much  easier  the  change  would  have  been 
twenty  years  ago  than  now,  and  how  much  more  difficult  it  will 
be  twenty  years  hence  than  now.  If  that  is  true  of  the  general 
proposition,  it  is  equally  true  of  screw  threads.  The  problem,  is 
made  no  easier  by  relegating  the  worst  of  it  to  the  indefinite 
future.  When  we  contemplate  the  adoption  of  the  metric  sys- 
tem we  must  contemplate  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system,  for 
the  ultimate  result  is  the  same,  no  matter  how  easy  the  approach 
nor  how  thin  the  entering  wedge. 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  89 

Among  the  few  converts  to  the  system  from  the  ranks  of 
constructors  the  value  of  standards  is  of  course  better  appreciated. 
The  plan  which  is  usually  offered  by  them  for  the  preservation 
of  standards  is  that  we  continue  to  use  existing  sizes  but  measure 
them  in  metric  units.  The  best  statement  of  this  is  perhaps 
that  of  Mr.  Geo.  S.  Morrison  at  the  discussion  of  the  Mechanical 
Engineers : 

"  The  question  is  not  of  changes  of  sizes  or  standards  but  it  is  a  question 
of  adopting  another  method  of  measuring  existing  standards." 

In  other  words  they  tell  us  that  the  difficulty  of  changing  the 
adopted  set  of  sizes  used  in  construction  is  to  be  met  by  not 
changing  them — the  sizes  now  used  being  continued  but  measured 
in  millimetres  instead  of  inches. 

Obviously  but  two  courses  of  action  are  open — we  must  change 
existing  sizes  or  not  change  them.  The  scientific  advocates  of  the 
system  expect  us  to  change,  while  those  who  understand  the  diffi- 
culties expect  us  to  make  no  change.  No  intelligent  constructor 
can  seriously  contemplate  the  scientific  plan  of  retiring  existing 
standards.  If  existing  standards  are  to  be  retained  they  must  be 
measured  either  in  inches  or  in  millimetres.  Since  the  object  of 
this  movement  is  to  retire  the  inch,  the  irreducible  minimum  of 
the  metric  case  is  this  plan  of  measuring  existing  sizes  in  milli- 
metres, the  feasibility  of  which  becomes,  therefore  the  dividing 
line  of  all  intelligent  opinion  upon  this  subject.  T;ie  shop  case 
for  the  metric  system  rests  absolutely  on  the  answer  to  the 
question:  Is  it  or  is  it  not  feasible  to  measure  existing  sizes  in 
millimetres  ? 

The  basic  feature  of  the  use  of  any  system  of  measurements 
in  construction  is  the  use  of  such  sizes  as  are  represented  by  the 
lines  on  scales  graduated  in  the  system  used.  English  sizes  are 
not  and  cannot  be  thus  represented  by  the  lines  on  metric  scales. 

This  is  the  essential  difference  between  the  practice  of  Eraiice 
and  Germany  on  the  one  hand  and  of  England  and  the  United 
States  on  the  other.  This  is  the  essential  difference  between  the 
injector  department  and  the  other  departments -of  William  Sellers 
&  Co.,  as  it  is  the  essential  difference  between  the  old  and  new 
engines  made  by  Willans  and  Robinson.  The  experience  of 
American  machine  tool  builders  in  fitting  their  tools  for  foreign 
trade  with  metric  measuring  and  adjusting  screws  and  of  the 
Brown  and  Sharpe  Manufacturing  Company  in  connection  with 


90  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

small  tools  is  of  the  same  kind.  The  fact  that  stands  out  above 
all  others  is  that  to  the  extent  which  these  manufacturers  have 
adopted  the  metric  system  to  the  same  extent  have  they  been  com- 
pelled to  abandon  English  sizes  and  English  standards. 

If  this  metric  equivalent  plan  is  such  an  easy  solution  of  the 
problem,  why  is  it  not  used?  The  practically  universal  use  of 
English  pitch  screw  threads  in  France  and  Germany  is  well 
known.  Of  more  importance  from  the  present  standpoint  is  the 
fact  that  not  only  do  the  French  and  Germans  use  English  threads 
but  that  they  measure  them  in  inches.  This  use  of  English 
threads  shows  the  difficulty  of  changing  established  standards 
while  the  use  of  the  inch  in  measuring  them  shows  the  necessity 
of  preserving  the  inch  in  order  to  measure  standards  based  on  the 
inch.  The  fact  that  the  Germans  not  only  use  English  threads 
but  that  they  regularly  measure  them  just  as  we  do  is  beyond 
controversy.  I  have  the  fact  from  Mr.  Henry  Hess  and  Mr. 
H.  B.  Bartlett,  both  of  whom  have  been  connected  for  years  with 
German  machine  shops,  and  in  leading  capacities. 

Now  if  this  plan  is  so  feasible,  why  do  not  the  Germans  use  it? 
We  are  expected  to  use  it  with  all  established  standards.  Why  do 
not  the  Germans  use  it  with  one?  That  metric  countries  need 
metric  threads  to  go  with  metric  measurements  generally  is  shown 
by  their  efforts  'to  get  them — efforts  which  are  thus  described  by 
Mr.  Hess  in  the  communication  to  the  American  Machinist  which 
has  already  teen  referred  to : 

"  Finally  various  engineering  societies  took  up  the  matter  and  appointed 
delegates  to  draw  up  and  sift  proposals.  The  work  occupied  a  number  of 
years,  and  in  the  fall  of  1898  culminated  in  the  adoption  by  a  congress  of 
delegates  from  Germany,  France,  Switzerland,  Italy,  and  other  countries 
using  the  metric  system  of  measurements,  of  a  shape  of  thread  and  pitch 
to  which  they  assigned  the  name  of  Syst£me  International,  generally 
known  by  the  abbreviation  S.  I.  or  S.  J." 

We  are  told  that  we  are  to  save  our  screw  thread  standards  by 
measuring  them  in  millimetres.  If  an  English  thread  can  be  so 
easily  converted  into  a  metric  thread  why  do  not  the  nations  of 
metric  Europe  follow  the  plan  instead  of  making  these  tremen- 
dous efforts  to  obtain  a  metric  standard? 

Referring  to  page  42  ante  the  reader  will  find  the  recently 
adopted  pipe  arid  pipe  thread  standard  of  the  German  Society  of 
Engineers,  and  he  will  note  that  the  only  dimensions  commonly 
used  by  merchant,  draughtsman  or  mechanic  are  given  in  English 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  91 

inches.  Why  are  they  not  given  in  metric  equivalents?  Our 
metric  advocates  point  especially  to  our  pipe  and  pipe  thread 
standards  as  two  which  are  to  be  saved  by  the  use  of  metric  equiv- 
alents. Why  do  not  the  Germans  use  them  f 

With  characteristic  inverted  logic,  we  are  told  that  Germany 
does  not  use  metric  screw  threads  because  she  does  not  need  them 
(Mr.  Christie,  page  7).*  On  the  contrary,  the  need  is  shown  by 
the  effort  put  forth ;  the  lack  of  accomplishment  is  a  measure  of 
the  difficulties  encountered.  Germany  fails  to  use  metric  screw 
threads,  not  because  she  does  not  need  them,  ~but  because,  with  all 
her  effort,  she  cannot  get  them.  Her  continued  use  of  English 
pitch  threads  is  but  another  illustration  of  the  difficulty  of  chang- 
ing a  unit  of  length  and  of  the  length  of  the  period  of  transi- 
tion— that  period  which,  I  will  again  remind  the  reader,  the 
metric  advocates  assure  us  will,  with  us,  occupy  but  three  to  "five 
years. 

With  one  breath  these  gentlemen  tell  us  how  quickly  we  can 
make  this  change  and  in  the  next  they  point  with  pride  to  the  fact 
that  Germany  has  not  yet  changed  her  screw  threads,  and  yet 
they  have  to  be  told  that  the  second  statement  stultifies  the  first. 

Had  Germany  adopted  metric  threads  our  metric  friends  would 
point  to  the  fact  at  once  and  say :  Behold  how  easy  is  the  change ! 
Germany  has  not  adopted  metric  threads,  and  now  they  point  to 
that  and  say:  Behold  how  easy  is  the  change ! 

Much  has  been  made  of  the  example  of  Willans  and  Kobinson, 
of  Rugby,  England,  and  of  the  fact  that  they  use  inches  and  milli- 
meters side  by  side.  The  significant  thing  in  this  connection  is 
that  the  inches  are  used  in  the  older  sizes  of  engines  which  were 
designed  before  the  introduction  of  the  metric  system.  If  this 
plan  for  the  use  of  metric  equivalents  is  so  feasible,  why  do  not 
Willans  and  Robinson  adopt  it  and  so  make  their  works  a  pure 
metric  works?  By  changing  the  figures  on  the  drawings  and 
rcstamping  the  sizes  on  the  shop  tools  the  cjiange  could,  were  this 
plan  feasible,  be  completed  almost  at  a  stroke,  instead  of  spending 
the  years  which  have  already  elapsed  and  those  which  are  still  to 
come.  Why  is  not  the  plan  adopted  ? 

In  Part  II.  of  this  book  will  be  found  numerous  citations  of  the 
use  of  various  kinds  of  inches  in  the  textile  industries  of  metric 
Europe.  Were  this  plan  feasible,  the  millimetre  would  become 

*  This  and  the  succeeding  page  references  of  this  chapter  are  to  the  pamphlet 
proceedings  of  the  House  Committee. 


92  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

the  universal  solvent  of  them  all  and  they  would  disappear.     Why 
is  the  plan  not  used? 

The  reason  why  the  Germans  do  not  use  metric  equivalents  for 
English  pitch  screw  threads  and  English  sized  gas  pipe,  and  why 
Willans  and  Robinson  do  not  use  metric  equivalents  for  English 
sizes  is  not  difficult  to  discover.  Will  the  reader  please  glance  at 
the  following  table  of  metric  equivalents  of  a  few  of  the  usual 
fractional  sizes  of  an  inch. 

Tn^oQ  Metric  Tnr-v^e  Metric 

Equivalent.  W      .  Equivalent. 

1  25.4  2  50.8 

U  28.57  2i  53.97 

li  31.75  2i  57.15 

If  34.92  2f  60.32 

H  38.10  2*  63  5 

If  41.27  2f  66.67 

If  44.45  2f  69.85 

1|  47.62  2|  73.02 

3  76.2 

Is  not  the  point  obvious  at  a  glance  ?  While  the  law  of  the 
series  is  simple  enough,  it  is  not  obvious  to  the  eye,  and  the  'man 
does  not  live  who  can  memorize  the  list.  Only  two  inches  of  the 
range  are  given,  and  even  then  only  to  eighths ;  but  remember  that 
no  combination  of  figures  repeats  itself  until  10  inches  is  reached, 
while  there  is  nothing  in  the  above  list  to  correspond  to  any  even 
inch  between  10  and  20  except  15,  nor  between  20  and  30  except 
25.  The  load  which  such  a  table  places  upon  the  memory  is 
limited  only  by  its  length. 

Imagine  this  table  to  be  a  bolt  list.  A  farmer  has  broken  a 
28.6  millimetre  bolt  and  wants  a  larger  one,  but  he  nor  any  one 
can  tell  what  size  to  call  for  without  calculation  or  consulting  a 
list.  Are  we  all  to  carry  a  list  of  bolt  sizes  in  our  pockets  ?  Will 
some  one  point  out  the  gain  due  to  calling  a  IJ-inch  bolt  a  28.6 
millimetre  bolt,  or  give,  any  reason  which  should  lead  any  one  to 
use  the  metric  figures? 

In  a  certain  stock-room  the  interval  between  the  sizes  of  bar 
iron  carried  is  ^  inch.  Two  of  the  sizes  in  stock  are  2^  and  2f 
inches.  The  metric  equivalent  of  the  former  is  63.5  millimetres. 
Will  some  metric  enthusiast,  without  calculation,  kindly  name 
the  next  metric  size?  Will  he  name  any  metric  size  upon  the 
list  except  those  corresponding  to  even  inches?  Will  he  say  if 
he  ever  expects  to  be  able  to  name  one-quarter  of  the  sizes  used 
in  every  tool  and  stock  room  ?  If  he  thinks  he  can  memorize  the 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  93 

table  as  given,  does  he  think  he  could  do  it  after  the  sixteenths 
are  added  ?  If  he  does,  how  will  the  matter  stand  after  the  table 
is  extended  to,  say,  ten  inches?  If  he  finally  gives  up  the  task 
of  memorizing  the  table,  will  he  say  if  he  intends  to  carry  a  list 
of  equivalents  in  his  pocket,  or,  failing  that,  whether  he  expects 
to  use  a  lead-pencil  or  a  slide  rule  whenever  he  has  occasion  to 
call  for  a  tool  or  a  bar  of  iron  ?  He  must  do  one  or  the  other , 
or  else  use  the  English  figures.  Do  the  metric  enthusiasts  really 
think  that  during  the  "  transition  period  "  any  one  will  calculate 
metric  dimensions  which  cannot  be  memorized  when  he  can  use 
English  dimensions  which  memorize  themselves  ? 

If  the  intervals  were,  say,  one  millimetre  up  to  50  mm.,  two 
from  50  to  100  and  so  on,  a  metric  list  of  sizes  could  be  mem- 
orized as  easily  as  our  own,  but  with  the  intervals  determined  by 


1 

2,               3 

iMilimlimlm, 

4 

o 

6 

7 

m,lm, 

1 

; 

SCALE  OF  MILLIMETRES. 

the  English  scale  it  is  hopeless  to  try  to  memorize  the  metric 
equivalents.  If  they  cannot  be  memorized  they  will  not  be  used, 
and  this  is  the  end  of  the  metric  equivalent  scheme. 

Moreover  we  have  an  excellent  illustration  of  the  impracti- 
cability of  using  such  a  series  of  decimal  sizes  as  that  given  in  the 
foregoing  table.  The  metric  advocates  are  fond  of  citing  the 
fact  that  the  actual  sizes  of  standard  pipe  are  different  from  the 
nominal  sizes,  but  this,  like  most  of  their  citations,  turns  against 
them.  Why  do  we  use  the  nominal  and  not  the  actual  sizes? 
Because  the  actual  sizes  are  expressed  by  a  series  of  decimals 
that  cannot  be  remembered.  And  yet  those  metric  advocates 
who  believe  in  saving  standards  by  the  use  of  millimetre  equiv- 
alents propose  that  we  shall  translate  these  and  all  other  stand- 
ardized sizes  into  metric  decimals  that  are  just  as  impossible  of 
remembrance,  and  that  we  save  existing  standards  by  using  them. 

If  the  reader  has  any  doubts  about  the  necessity  for  memo- 
rizing this  table  let  him  imagine  a  draughtsman  equipped  with  a 
metric  scale  as  in  the  illustration  and  attempting  to  use  it  in 
laying  down  a  J-inch  bolt,  a  11-inch  pipe  or  a  2^-inch  shaft.  Let 
him  attempt  to  lay  down  these  sizes  with  this  scale  and  he  will 
find  himself  entirely  at  sea,  and  he  will  remain  at  sea  until  he 
has  memorized  this  table.  And  to  carry  out  this  specious  scheme 


94  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

it  is  necessary  that  not  only  draughtsmen  but  all  working  me- 
chanics shall  perform  this  impossible  feat  of  memory. 

A  suggestion  which  is  occasionally  heard  was  put  on  record  by 
Mr.  Christie  (page  6,  italics  mine) : 

"  I  would  make  no  immediate  change  in  any  of  the  tools, 
simply  taking  them  as  they  are  and  naming  them  to  ike  nearest 
convenient  metric  unit.  For  instance,  call  1  inch  25  millimetres, 
and  so  on,  with  the  multiples  and  subdivisions  of  the  inch/' 
Would  he  call  3  inches  75  millimetres?  Its  value  "  to  the  nearest 
convenient  unit"  is  76.  Would  he  call  it  76?  Then,  3  times  1 
inch  is  not  3  inches.  Would  he  call  10  inches  250  millimetres? 
Its  value  is  254.  This  suggestion  falls  by  its  own  weight. 

Another  suggestion  of  Mr.  Christie's  (page  7)  is  that  "  The 
various  pitches  of  screw  thread  are  entirely  arbitrary,  and  we 
could  distinguish  the  different  pitches  from  each  other  by  the 
letters  of  the  alphabet  if  we  chose,  or  any  other  nominal  distinc- 
tion that  is  convenient."  I  suggest  that  Mr.  Christie  draw  up 
such  a  table  of  symbols,  and  then  contemplate  the  task  of  memo- 
rizing it.  According  to  Mr.  Christie  (page  9)  one  of  the  great 
advantages  of  the  metric  system  is  that  it  avoids  any  "  undue 
strain  on  the  memory."  Does  Mr.  Christie  think  that  draughts- 
men will  prefer  arbitrary  symbols  to  areas  and  diameters  when 
figuring  strengths? 

In  the  discussion  before  the  Mechanical  Engineers,  Mr.  Gus 
C.  Henning  put  Mr.  Christie's  suggestion  in  more  definite  shape, 
thus : 

"  Now  let  us  take  up  the  argument  of  the  table  of  metric  equivalents 
of  values  of  parts  of  inches,  increasing  by  eighths. 

"  This  is  again  an  extravagant  misrepresentation  of  difficulties. 

"  If  the  values  of  %  inch  between  1  to  3  inches  be  given  in  the  nearest 
quarters,  or  $fe  millimetre,  not  one  of  the  figures  given  will  vary  from 
the  true  value  by  more  than  TI/fo  of  one  inch,  which  is  a  matter  too  small 
to  observe  by  any  person  except  he  be  provided  with  a  micrometre  caliper. 
The  table  will  then  read: 

1  25.5  H  38.00  2  51.0  2£  63.5 

1£  28.5  If  41  25  2i  54.0  2§  06.75 

H  31.75  If  44.5  2i  57.25  2f  69.75 

If  35.0  1£  47.5  2f  60.25  21  73.00 

3  76.25 

"  In  this  shape  the  figures  can  be  memorized  by  an  effort,  and  they  will 
be  accurate  for  practical  purposes.  Let  me  ask  the  same  question  as 
the  author.  '  Is  not  the  point  obvious  at  a  glance?  '  All  I  can  say  is, 
'  None  so  blind  as  those  who  do  not  want  to  see.'  " 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  95 

Mr.  Henning's  table  of  equivalents  does  not  look  to  me  to  be  so 
easily  memorized  as  it  seems  to  look  to  him,  and  if  he  will  add  the 
sixteenths,  which  must  be  done,  it  will  look  less  easy  still  to  both  of 
us.  It  has,  however,  the  fatal  defect  of  all  approximate  tables — 
they  are  accurate  enough  for  some  purposes,  but  not  for  others. 
Th^s  table  is  accurate  enough  for  bar  iron,  but  not  for  reamers  and 
many  other  tools.  Reamers  could  not  be  ground  to  his  figures  nor 
could  they  safely  have  the  figures  stamped  upon  them.  For  ac- 
curate work  we  must  have  an  accurate  table.  That  is,  an  approxi- 
mate table  is  only  an  additional  or  supplementary  table  which 
does  not  simplify  matters,  but  on  the  contrary,  makes  them  still 
worse,  and,  moreover,  opens  wide  the  door  for  limitless  mistakes. 

It  is,  moreover,  clear  that  while  deceived  by  their  own  specious 
argument,  the  metric  advocates  themselves  instinctively  reject  it. 

Metric  literature  is  full  of  statements  tending  to  show  that  the 
change  will  cost  but  little  if  done  "  gradually  "  or  "  little  by  little." 
We  are  told  that  tools  and  gauges  are  perishable,  and  that  we  will 
have  to  do  little  more  than  replace  them  as  they  wear  out  with 
metric  tools  and  gauges.  Every  reference  to  such  expedients  is 
a  tacit  acknowledgment  that  existing  sizes  are  to  be  changed.  In 
one  breath  they  tell  us  that  there  is  to  be  no  change  and  in  the 
next  they  tell  us  that  the  change  will  not  cost  much  if  done  grad- 
ually. 

I  do  not,  of  course,  wish  to  be  understood  as  trying  to  prove 
that  the  use  of  metric  equivalents  for  English  sizes  is  physically 
impossible.  Very  possibly  it  can  be  shown  that  the  German 
people,  who  have  this  thing  on  their  hands  and  must  get  along 
with  it  in  some  way,  use  equivalents  in  a  limited  way  and  in 
special  cases.  The  habitual  use  of  sizes,  of  which  the  list  cannot 
be  memorized  and  nearly  all  of  which  are  not  indicated  by  any 
mark  on  the  scales  in  use,  is,  however,  unthinkable. 

It  is  then  clear  that  the  retirement  of  the  inch  involves  the 
retirement  of  all  mechanical  standards  based  on  the  inch. 

And  what  is  it  all  for  ?  The  metric  advocates  can  answer  best. 
Mr.  Christie  (page  9)  *  tells  us : 

I  think  one  of  the  greatest  advantages  is  its  convenience  in  computation: 
I  think  that  is  unquestionable.  The  next  is,  convenience  for  memorizing;  it  is  a 
system,  which  the  mind  can  grasp  and  readily  retain  without  undue  strain  on  the 
memory.  These,  I  think,  are  the  two  great  advantages. 

*  The  page  references  are  to  the  pamphlet  proceedings  of  the  House  Com- 
mittee. 


96  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

Dr.  Wiley  (page  50)  says: 

Now  when  you  see  the  beautiful  relations  which  exist  between  the  unit  of 
length,  weight  and  capacity  ....  Then  there  is  the  direct  relation  between 
the  unit  of  length  and  the  unit  of  weight  and  we  have  the  measures  of  capacity 
that  come  directly  from  it. 

In  answer  to  the  question,  What  would  be  the  advantage  to  the 
general  public — the  plain  people — throughout  the  country  by  the 
adoption  of  this  system?  Professor  Newcomb  answered  (page  73, 
italics  mine) : 

The  advantage  would  simply  be  that  of  simplicity.  7  :  :  So  far  as  every  day 
purposes  are  concerned  I  do  not  know  of  any  particular  advantage.  .  .  . 

Dr.  Geddings  (page  75)  says: 

It  is  simple,  elastic,  scientific,  and  on  the  whole  a  beautiful  structure,  and  the 
interrelation  and  the  beautiful  correlation  which  exist  between  its  measures  of 
weight  and  measures  of  capacity,  and  its  measures  of  length  and  area,  I  think 
only  require  a  very  limited  consideration  to  appeal  to  anyone  who  is  desirous  of 
getting  into  the  ranks  of  the  progress  of  the  age. 

And  so  on  to  the  end  of  the  wearisome  chapter.  Was  there 
ever  such  a  case  of  sacrificing  the  greater  to  the  lesser?  Was 
there  ever  such  a  case  of  distorted  perspective?  Was  there  ever 
such  a  case  of  rainbow  chasing?  As  an  epitome  of  the  reasons 
for  making  this  great  change  this  pamphlet  is  pitiful.  Are  we 
a  nation  of  dreaming  idealists  and  transcendentalists  that  we 
should  be  swayed  by  such  considerations? 

The  most  terse,  concise  and  truthful  words  into  which  the  little- 
ness of  the  metric  case  was  ever  condensed  are  those  of  Napoleon : 
"  It  is  a  tormenting  of  the  people  for  mere  trifles." 


THE  VALUE  OF  MECHANICAL  STANDARDS. 

If  what  has  preceded  has  proven  anything  whatever,  it  is  that 
the  idea  of  using  metric  equivalents  for  English  dimensions  must 
be  given  up.  If  this  idea  must  be  given  up,  the  inevitable  con- 
clusion is  that  the  abandonment  of  the  inch  will  involve  the  de- 
struction of  our  existing  standards. 

The  destruction  of  our  existing  standards!  A  few  words,  not 
even  a  complete  sentence.  They  are  easily  spoken,  but  does  any 
one  who  reads  this  paper  appreciate  their  appalling  meaning,  the 
industrial  chaos  to  which  their  destruction  would  consign  us? 
Established  industrial  standards  are  among  the  most  priceless  of 
material  possessions,  and  the  man  who  would  destroy  them  de- 
serves to  be  placed  in  the  pillory  and  held  up  to  the  scorn  of 
men. 

The  man  who  can  estimate  or  indicate  in  words  the  value  of 
mechanical  standards  to  this  country  and  the  loss  due  to  their 
destruction  does  not  live,  and  I  shall  not  attempt  it.  The  pam- 
phlet containing  the  testimony  before  the  House  committee  is 
full  of  questions  and  of  testimony  from  the  metric  advocates,  the 
purpose  of  which  is  to  show  that  the  cost  of  changing  stand- 
ardized tools  is,  after  all,  not  very  serious,  if  done  gradually,  but 
nowhere  is  there  anything  to  indicate  that  these  people  have  any 
idea  of  the  value  of  a  standard  as  such.  For  their  benefit,  there- 
fore, I  will  explain  that  while  the  value  of  standardized  tools  in 
this  country  runs  into  unnumbered  millions  of  dollars,  the  value  of 
a  standard  is  not  chiefly  or  even  largely  represented  by  such  tools. 

The  chief  value  of  a  standard  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is 
adopted,  that  it  has  become  a  part  of  our  daily  lives,  and  works  so 
Bmoothly  that  we  are  scarcely  aware  of  its  existence.  For  example, 
the  value  of  pipe-thread  standards  is  not  represented  by  the  taps 
and  dies  in  the  hands  of  pipe  makers  and  fitters,  but  by  the  fact 
that  because  the  threads  are  standardized  pipe  fittings  can  be 
made  by  the  million,  at  trifling  cost,  and  that  when  we  need  a 
fitting  we  can  buy  it  for  a  few  cents  with  the  assurance  that  it 
will  fit,  instead  of  having  to  get  it  cut  to  order  to  suit  an  odd 
size  of  thread.  Similarly  the  cost  of  attempting  to  change  air- 


98  THE   METRIC   FALLACY. 

brake  hose  couplings  is  not  represented  by  the  value  of  the  tools 
for  making  the  couplings  in  the  Westinghouse  .Works,  but  by  the 
infinite  confusion  of  the  railroads  in  getting  from  one  standard 
to  another.  The  value  of  the  tools  in  this  case  is  not  many  dol- 
lars, but  the  cost  of  the  change  cannot  be  found  upon  any  inven- 
tory, nor  can  it  be  measured  by  any  scale. 

In  this  matter  of  air  brake  hose  couplings,  what  would  be 
thought  of  a  "  gradual "  change*  or  of  a  change  made  "  little  by 
little  "  as  has  been  suggested  ?  What  would  be  thought  of  the 
idea  that  the  air  brake  factories  and  repair  shops  equip  them- 
selves with  metric  tools  and  gauges  as  the  existing  tools  and 
gauges  wear  out? 

Is  it  not  perfectly  plain  that  air  brake  hose  couplings  must 
not  be  changed  at  all,  and  does  not  this  simple  illustration  show 
that  the  above  and  all  similar  suggestions  regarding  all  standard- 
ized things  are  beside  the  mark?  What  we  have  to  find  is  not 
a  means  by  which  such  things  can  be  changed,  but  a  means  by 
which  such  changes  may  be  avoided,  and  such  changes  may  be 
avoided  by  preserving  the  inch  and  by  no  other  means  whatever. 

Again  in  this  illustration  of  a  change  in  air  brake  hose  coup- 
lings, how  much  of  an  application  do  we  see  of  Professor  Strat- 
ton's  statement  that  "  the  most  serious  difficulty  of  all  is  that 
we  have  learned  to  think  in  the  old  system,"  or  of  Dr.  Pritchett's 
statement  that  "  the  argument  for  the  preservation  of  old  and 
inconvenient  standards  rests  on  no  other  basis  than  the  inertia 
of  mankind  "  ?  There  could  be  no  better  illustration  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  these  suggestions  fall  to  the  ground  whenever  they 
are  applied  to  a  concrete  case. 

Similarly  again,  the  cost  of  changing  our  pipe-thread  standard 
is  not  represented  by  the  cost  of  new  taps  and  dies,  but  by  the 
confusion  involved  in  getting  from  one  standard  to  another — a 
confusion  which  will  last  until  existing  steam,  water,  and  gas 
pipes  have  disappeared,  and  which  will  not  be  lessened  by  putting 
off  the  change  until  it  is  brought  about  "  at  the  suggestion  and 
convenience  of  manufacturers." 

Similarly  again  the  value  of  shafting  and  pulley  standards  lies 
in  the  fact  that  by  reason  of  them  shafting  and  pulleys  may  be 
made  in  large  quantities  and  therefore  cheaply;  that  because 
their  fitting  is  insured,  they  can  be  made  in  advance  and  sold 

*  See  the  succeeding  footnote. 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  99 

from  stock  as  needed,  instead  of  being  made  to  order  at  increased 
cost  and  delay;  that  pulleys  can  be  changed  about  as  needed,  and 
if  thrown  out  of  use  become  again  available  for  any  shaft  of 
their  size,  whenever  wanted.  Who  would  think  of  estimating 
the  value  of  shafting  standards  to  the  country,  by  the  value  of 
the  turning  and  boring  tools  and  gauges  in  pulley  and  shafting 
factories?  Nevertheless,  that  is  exactly  what  the  metric  advo- 
cates do  in  their  references  to  the  gradual  change  of  shop  tools.* 
Every  reference  to  the  cost  of  new  tools  tacitly  assumes  that 
present  standards  are  to  ~be  abandoned. 

It  is  because  of  our  standards  and  our  standardized  methods 
that  American  mechanical  industries  are  great.  It  is  in  this 
that  we  lead,  and  by  this  sign  we  conquer.  It  is  this  that  dis- 
tinguishes us  from  the  remainder  of  the  world,  and  having  the 
lead  which  such  things  give  us,  we  are  asked  to  abandon  it  and 
line  up  in  the  race  afresh.  And  this  in  the  name  of  progress. 

In  this  matter  of  existing  standards  these  people  blow  hot  with 
one  breath  and  cold  with  the  next.  In  the  report  of  the  House 
committee  they  assure  us  that  no  change  is  contemplated,  but 
when  driven  into  a  corner  they  can  only  suggest  that  we  abandon 
the  old  standards  and  establish  new  ones,  which  will  be  so  much 
better,  you  know.  Thus  Mr.  Stratton  (page  155),  quoting  from 

*  The  circular  letter  of  inquiry  sent  to  manufacturers  by  the  Franklin 
Institute  contained  this  question  (italics  mine): 

"  If  the  metric  system  were  adopted  within  a  few  years  in  your  business 
would  its  gradual  adoption  entail  great  expense?  " 

To  this  the  Cincinnati  manufacturers  of  machinery  replied  in  part  as 
follows: 

"  To  adopt  the  system  gradually  would  involve  making  machines  for 
years  with  part  English  and  part  metric  dimensions,  with  constant 
change  as  the  English  dimensions  are  dropped — that  is,  until  the  transi- 
tion is  complete.  During  this  period  there  could  be  no  standardized  pro- 
duction, but  constant  change.  We  cannot  regard  the  use  of  both  systems 
on  the  same  machine  as  a  thing  to  be  tolerated,  much  less  deliberately 
encouraged.  To  continue  existing  units  on  old  machines  while  adopting 
the  metric  units  on  new  ones  helps  matters  but  little,  as  in  all  lines 
of  machines  many  parts  are  common  to  different  sizes.  Moreover,  the 
whole  question  is  based  on  the  idea  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  change  is 
measured  by  the  cost  of  buying  new  small  tools.  On  the  contrary,  the 
chief  sacrifice  is  in  the  changing  of  standardized  things — in  the  throwing 
away  of  standards,  the  value  of  which  we  will  not  know  until  we  lose 
them.  Into  the  loss  due  to  the  destruction  of  standards  the  element  of 
time  does  not  enter,  and  we  therefore  regard  the  idea  of  a  gradual  change 
as  simply  postponing  and  refusing  to  face  the  difficulties  of  the  problem." 


100  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

Mr.  Sellers,  to  the  effect  that  the  cost  of  throwing  away  old  taps 
when  the  Sellers  system  of  threads  was  introduced  was  a  judicious 
expenditure,  added: 

Does  not  this  argument  apply  with  still  greater  force  in  connection  with  a 
universal  system  of  screw  threads  which  this  measure  does  not  contemplate, 
but  which  is  greatly  to  be  desired,  and  a  change  to  the  metric  system  of  weights 
and  measures  would  undoubtedly  bring  about  in  time  a  change  in  our  system 
of  screw  threads,  but  only  at  the  suggestion  and  convenience  of  manufacturers. 

In  the  above,  Mr.  Sellers  describes  the  discarding  of  a  miscel- 
laneous assortment  of  taps  in  order  to  adopt  a  standard;  Mr. 
Stratton  proposes  to  discard  a  standard,  which  has  consumed  forty 
years  in  becoming  such,  in  order  to  start  a  new  one.  In  this  he 
shows  that  he  has  so  little  knowledge  of  the  value  of  standards, 
of  the  time  required  to  get  them  adopted,  and  of  the  confusion 
involved  in  changing  them,  that  he  takes  the  inauguration  of  a 
standard  as  a  precedent  for  discarding  it. 

This  has  been  quoted  before,  but  it  will  stand  it  again.  It  is 
difficult  to  be  patient  or  to  use  temperate  language  regarding 
such  a  proposal.  Why  not  throw  away  our  standards  and  adopt 
new  ones?  "Why  not  cut  down  the  trees  in  Central  Park  and  set 
out  saplings  in  their  places?  There  is  no  doubt  that,  give  Mm 
time,  a  capable  landscape  architect  could  improve  the  Park.  The 
answer  to  each  question  is  the  same.  "With  trees  and  standards 
alike,  a  generation  of  time  is  required  for  them  to  take  root  and 
grow  and  become  integral  with  the  soil.  Moreover,  the  old  stand- 
ards cannot  be  cut  down.  The  new  must  grow  up  in  the  shadow 
of  the  old,  and  saplings  transplanted  to  the  depth  of  an  old  forest 
are  not  apt  to  thrive.  Destroy  our  standards  for  the  sake  of  new 
ones  that  are  no  better,  and  that  can  only  become  really  stand- 
ard after  a  generation  of  confusion.  This  is  the  metric  pro- 
gramme of  simplicity,  progress,  and  reform.  And,  again,  what  is 
it  all  for?  How  much  compensation  will  there  be  in  the  "  beau- 
tiful interrelation  and  correlation  of  the  units  "  ? 


"  THE  GOVERNMENT  WILL  PAY  THE  COST." 

A  favorite  assertion  of  the  metric  advocates  is  that  through  the 
operation  of  the  proposed  law,  individual  manufacturers  will  be 
relieved  of  the  cost  of  the  change  because  the  cost  of  new  tools 
and  gauges  will,  they  say,  be  included  in  estimates  for  goods  sup- 
plied to  the  Government,  and  manufacturers  will  thus  gradually 
accumulate  a  stock  of  such  tools  and  gauges  at  the  expense  of 
the  Government.  In  this  way,  we  are  told,  the  cost  of  the  change 
will  be  distributed  among  the  whole  people  and  not  be  a  burden 
on  individual  manufacturers. 

This  found  expression  in  one  of  the  points  on  which  the  bi- 
partisan committee  of  the  American  Society  of  Mechanical  En- 
gineers were  able  to  agree,  although  the  anti-metric  half  of  that 
committee  has  since  withdrawn  their  approval  of  this  point.  The 
point  in  question  as  it  appears  in  the  report  of  the  committee  is 
as  follows: 

"  Recognizing  the  well  settled  fact  that  the  consumer  does  and  must 
pay  all  necessary  cost  of  production,  we  believe  that  if  the  Government 
specifies  such  dimensions  as  will  materially  increase  cost  of  production, 
the  Government  and  not  the  bidder  will  have  to  pay  such  increased  costs, 
it  being  self-evident  that  a  bidder,  not  compelled  to  bid,  will  not  bid 
except  at  a  price  which  will  afford  him  a  profit." 

The  same  idea  found  expression  in  the  American  Machinist 
for  March  20,  1903,  in  the  following  words : 

"  Director  S.  W.  Stratton  of  the  National  Bureau  of  Standards  *  *  * 
believes  the  present  bills  are  beneficent  because  they  provide  that  after  a 
certain  date  the  United  States  Government  shall  become  a  large  buyer  of 
tools  and  machinery  made  in  accordance  with  the  metric  system.  Of 
course,  the  Government  will  pay  for  this  work,  and  all  who  bid  upon  it 
will  be  upon  an  equal  footing,  so  far  as  the  use  of  the  metric  system  is 
concerned,  and  can  make  their  estimates  and  bids  in  accordance  with 
whatever  extra  expense  may  be  entailed  thereby.  Thus,  then,  manufac- 
turers will  be  paid  by  the  Government  for  the  equipment  that  Mr.  Stratton 
and  many  others  believe  will  become  increasingly  necessary  or  important 
to  the  American  manufacturer  in  carrying  on  his  foreign  trade." 


102  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

When  after  the  passage  of  this  bill  the  Government  calls  for 
bids  for  any  manufactured  article  for  the  first  time,  the  manu- 
facturers will  include  the  cost  of  new  tools  and  gauges  in  their 
estimates  and  the  Government  will  pay  for  them  as*  claimed. 
When,  however,  the  Government  calls  for  that  article  a  second 
time  those  who  bid  upon  it  will  not  "  be  upon  an  equal  footing 
so  far  as  the  use  of  the  metric  system  is  concerned,"  since  the 
first  successful  bidder  will  have  his  tools  and  gauges  on  hand  free  of 
cost  to  himself  while  the  others  will  not.  Should  the  first  successful 
bidder  take  advantage  of  this  and  include  as  much  of  the  cost  of  his 
tools  and  gauges  in  his  second  bid  as  he  thinks  safe,  and,  by  a  slight 
difference  obtain  the  contract,  he  will  be  paid  nearly  twice  for  his 
tools  and  gauges.  Should  he  include  their  entire  cost,  and  should 
the  contract  go  by  a  slight  difference  to  another  bidder,  that  bidder 
will  have  his  tools  and  gauges  paid  for  by  the  Government.  After 
that  the  conditions  will  be  those  of  free  competition.  At  the 
most  two  manufacturers  in  each  line  of  goods  will  have  their  tools 
and  gauges  paid  for  by  the  Government,  and  others  will  buy  and 
pay  for  their  own.  It  is  more  probable,  however,  that  the  first 
successful  bidder  will  exclude  the  cost  of  his  special  equipment 
from  all  bids  but  the  first  in  order  to  make  certain  the  obtaining 
of  later  contracts,  and  thus  the  natural  operation  of  the  law  will 
be  for  the  Government  to  equip  one  manufacturer  in  each  line 
of  goods  with  special  equipment  for  Government  work.  This  is 
scarcely  up  to  the  American  idea  of  even-handed  justice. 

It  will  be  observed,  moreover,  that  the  assertion  that  the  Gov- 
ernment will  pay  the  cost  of  new  tools  and  gauges  assumes  that 
standards  are  to  le  changed,  and  like  all  the  pro-metric  discus- 
sions of  this  phase  of  the  subject  it  ignores  the  value  of  standards 
as  such  and  the  infinite  confusion  due  to  changing  them.  The 
reader  will  compare  the  assertions  of  some  of  the  metric  advo- 
cates that  existing  standards  are  to  be  preserved  by  the  use  of 
metric  equivalents  with  the  repeated  assertion  that  the  Govern- 
ment is  to  pay  the  cost  of  new  tools  and  gauges.  Why  should  new 
tools  and  gauges  be  required  if  standards  are  not  to  be  changed  ? 


THE  INACCURACY  OF  THE  METRE 

It  is,  of  course,  well  known  that  the  metre  is  not  what  it  was 
intended  it  should  be — a  ten-millionth  part  of  the  quadrant  of 
the  earth's  meridian.  The  metric  advocates  insist  that  this  inac- 
curacy is  of  no  importance.  In  a  letter  from  Captain  F.  A. 
Mahan  to  Engineering  News  for  April  16,  1903,  the  following 
may  be  found: 

"  Now  what  are  some  of  the  objections  made  to  the  metric  system? 

"  That  the  metre  is  not  1-10,000,000  of  the  length  of  the  quadrant  from 
the  north  pole  to  the  equator.  That  is  granted,  but  to  what  extent  does 
that  affect  the  system?  Not  in  the  slightest." 

Professor  Stratton,  speaking  before  the  Western  Society  of 
Engineers  at  their  May,  1902,  meeting,  said: 

"  Subsequent  measurements  of  the  earth's  surface  have  shown  that  the 
metre  as  constructed  is  not  exactly  the  length  as  defined  and  this  fact 
has  sometimes  been  used  as  an  objection  to  the  metric  system.  This, 
however,  is  of  little  importance  since  the  metre  and  kilogramme  as  now 
constructed  are  as  permanent  as  it  is  possible  to  make  material  stand- 
ards." 

Again  Dr.  F.  A.  P.  Barnard  wrote  (The  Metric  System  of 
Weights  and  Measures,  page  107) : 

"  I  accept  the  metre  as  it  is,  not  because  it  is  the  ten-millionth  part  of 
the  French  quadrant  but  because  it  is  the  actual  base  of  an  admirable 
system  of  weights  and  measures." 

These  quotations  are  but  illustrations  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  metric  advocates  apologize  for  the  fact  that  the  metre,  like 
the  yard,  is  an  arbitrary  standard,  and  as  such  no  better  than  the 
yard.  If  it  was  to  be  no  better  than  the  yard  why  was  not  the 
yard  adopted  and  units  thus  obtained  which  at  least  would  have 
been  commensurate  with  the  old  ?  If  the  accuracy  of  the  survey 
of  the  meridian  was  of  no  importance  why  was  it  undertaken? 

Read  again  the  story  of  the  conferences,  discussions  and  delib- 
erations of  the  French  Academy  of  Sciences,  assisted  by  repre- 


104  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

sentatives  from  Spain,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Denmark  and 
Switzerland,  and  of  the  conclusion  that  the  ten-millionth  part  of 
the  earth's  quadrant  should  be  the  base  of  the  system.  Head 
again  the  story  of  the  seven  years'  survey  prosecuted  at  the  risk 
of  life  and  liberty,*  and  resulting  in  the  imprisonment  and  ulti- 
mate death  of  Menchain.f  Read  again  the  story  of  the  manner 
in  which  the  calculations  were  verified  by  a  committee  of  the 
National  Institute,  and  how  high  heaven  was  called  upon  to  wit- 
ness to  their  accuracy.  Read  again  the  story  of  the  ceremonious 
delivery  of  the  original  standards  into  the  national  archives  of 
France.  Read,  in  short,  the  story  of  the  tremendous  importance 
attached  to  the  derivation  of  the  original  metre  and  then  contrast 
this  with  the  present  day  assertions  of  the  metric  advocates  which 
say,  in  effect,  that  all  this  infinite  effort  was  mere  pother ;  that  the 
inaccuracy  of  the  metre  does  not  affect  the  system  "  in  the  slight- 
est." Does  not  this  impress  the  reader  as  rather  severe  criticism 
of  the  good  sense  of  those  who  wrent  to  these  infinite  pains  for 
nothing?  Well  may  the  shades  of  the  originators  of  the  system 
say,  "  Save  us  from  our  friends." 

No  ridicule  by  either  party  of  the  position  of  the  other  can 
equal  the  biting  though  unconscious  sarcasm  of  the  metric  ad- 
vocates in  asserting  that  the  inaccuracy  of  the  metre  is  of  no 
importance.  As  a  matter  of  fact  they  thus  show  how  little  they 
understand  the  principles  of  their  system  in  its  integrity. 

Nor  is  the  matter  helped  by  the  retreat  of  the  metric  advo- 
cates behind  the  fact  that  the  metre  may  be  reproduced  from 
the  known  length  of  a  wave  of  light,  since  that  method  may  be 
applied  equally  well  to  the  reproduction  of  the  yard.  By  no  sub- 
terfuge of  logic  can  the  metre  in  the  present  emasculated  condi- 
tion of  the  metric  system  be  shown  to  be  in  any  respect  superior 
as  a  standard  to  the  yard. 

*  The  Spaniards  believed  the  engineers  to  be  spies  or  engineers  of  an 
invading  army  of  France, 
t  Not  from  violence,  however. 


THE     ABANDONED     POKTIONS     OF     THE     METEIC 

SYSTEM. 

Many  are  not  aware  that  what  is  now  called  the  metric  system 
is  but  a  fragment  of  the  system  as  it  was  originated,  and  that 
portions  of  it  are  not  only  abandoned  as  failures  but  are  well- 
nigh  forgotten.  These  portions  relate  to  the  divisions  of  the 
year,  the  day,  the  circle  and  the  mariner's  compass,  and  of  these 
the  divisions  of  the  day  and  the  circle  are  not  mere  side  issues 
but  integral  and  essential  portions  of  the  system. 

Linear  and  angular  measurements  are  interrelated  through 
measurements  of  the  earth's  surface,  especially  in  navigation.  In 
the  English  system  linear  and  angular  measurements  are  con- 
nected by  the  fact  that  the  marine  mile  is  a  minute  of  arc  of  a 
great  circle  of  the  earth's  surface.* 

The  originators  of  the  metric  system  included  in  it  a  system  of 
angular  units  in  which  the  quadrant  was  divided  into  100  degrees, 
and  it  was  intended  that  a  kilometre  should  equal  a  minute  of 
arc  of  the  earth's  surface  by  the  new  angular  units  just  as  an 
English  marine  mile  equals  a  minute  by  the  old.f  In  order  that 
this  should  be  the  case  accuracy  in  the  determination  of  the  metre 
was  imperative.  No  other  unit  was  possible  as  the  base  of  the 
system  and  inaccuracy  in  the  survey  was  a  fatal  defect. 

Measurements  of  angles  and  of  time  are  again  interrelated 
through  differences  of  longitude  and  of  time.  In  the  old  system 
we  have  the  simple  and,  to  the  navigator,  highly  important  rela- 
tion that  one  hour  difference  of  time  corresponds  to  fifteen 
degrees  of  difference  of  longitude.  The  originators  of  the  metric 
system  divided  the  day  into  ten  hours  ^  intending  thereby  to  intro- 

*  This  is  a  relation  which  is  of  real,  and  not  imaginary  importance,  as 
is  the  connection  of  measures  of  length,  weight  and  capacity  through  the 
medium  of  water. 

t  A  quadrant  was  to  equal  100  degrees  of  100  minutes  each,  that  is  10,000 
minutes,  and  the  same  quadrant  was  to  equal  10,000,000  metres,  that  is 
10,000  kilometres. 

J  The  use  of  the  ten-hour  day  was  compulsory  in  France  for  a  year  and 
a  half. 


100  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

duce  the  relation  of  one  hour  difference  of  time  to  forty  of  the 
new  degrees  of  longitude. 

These  interrelations  of  the  units  of  length,  of  angles  and  of 
time  will  be  seen  to  be  of  fundamental  importance  to  the  navi- 
gator— and  it  was  at  this  point  that  the  new  system  promptly 
broke  clown.  The  French  people  refused  to  have  the  ten  hour 
day.  The  French  navigator  then  found  himself  with  the  com- 
bination of  the  twenty-four  hour  day  and  the  four  hundred  degree 
circle  on  his  hands,  giving  the  relation  of  one  hour  difference  of 
time  to  16°  66'  66f"  difference  of  longitude.  It  did  not  take 
him  long  to  decide  between  this  and  the  ratio  of  one  hour  to 
15  degrees  by  the  old  system,  and  he  promptly  discarded  the 
400  degree  circle.  He  then  found  himself  with  the  combination 
of  the  kilometre  and  the  360  degree  circle,  giving  the  relation 
one  kilometre  =  .5396  minute  of  arc.  Again,  it  did  not  take 
him  long  to  decide  between  this  and  the  old  system  in  which  1 
marine  mile  =  1  minute  of  arc  and  the  kilometre  as  a  measure  of 
sea  distances  followed  the  ten  hour  day  and  the  400  degree  circle 
to  the  limbo  of  discarded  things. 

We  thus  have  the  striking  fact  that  because  the  French 
people  a  hundred  years  ago  refused  to  have  the  ten  hour  day 
the  speeds  of  the  ships  of  the  French  navy  are  to-day  measured 
in  English  knots  and  sea  distances  in  English  miles. 

With  that  remarkable  insight  into  all  phases  of  the  subject 
which  characterizes  his  report,  John  Quincy  Adams  referred  to 
this  topic  as  follows : 

"  A.11  navigation  is  admeasurement  *  *  *  Yet  a  system  of  weights 
and  measures  which  excludes  all  geography,  astronomy  and  navigation 
from  its  consideration  must  be  essentially  defective  in  its  principle  of 
uniformity. 

"  But  if  the  metre  and  its  decimal  divisions  are  not  to  be  applied  to 
those  operations  of  man  for  which  it  is  most  especially  adapted;  if  those 
who  circumnavigate  the  globe,  in  fact,  are  to  make  no  use  of  it  and  to 
have  no  concern  in  its  proportions;  if  their  measures  are  still  to  be  the 
nonagesimal  degree,  the  marine  league,  the  toise  and  the  foot;  it  is  surely 
of  little  consequence  to  the  farmer  who  needs  a  measure  for  his  corn, 
to  the  mechanic  who  builds  a  house  or  to  the  townsman  who  buys  a  pound 
of  meat  or  a  bottle  of  wine  to  know  that  the  weight  or  measure  which 
he  employs  was  standarded  by  the  circumference  of  the  globe." 

It  is  obvious  that  we  cannot  have  one  system  of  latitude  and 
longitude  for  the  sea  and  another  for  the  land.  If  the  360 
degree  circle  is  to  be  continued  in  navigation  it  must  be  con- 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  107 

tinued  in  all  terrestrial  geography.  If  continued  in  geography 
it  must  be  continued  for  all  other  purposes,  and  we  see  at  once 
how  puerile  are  the  repeated  predictions  of  the  recrudescence 
of  the  400  degree  circle.*  It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  navigator 
will  not  use  the  kilometre  until  he  has  the  400  degree  circle, 
and  that  he  will  not  use  the  400  degree  circle  until  the  people 
of  the  earth  have  accepted  the  ten  hour  day.  The  reader  may 
judge  of  the  time  when  this  is  likely  to  be  done.  When  it, 
is  done  it  will  be  in  order  to  revise  the  length  of  the  metre  in 
order  that  a  kilometre  may  equal  a  centessimal  minute  of  arc. 

With  their  plan  worked  out  to  include  interrelated  units  for 
the  measurement  of  linear  distances,  of  angles  and  of  time,  the 
founders  of  the  system  had  some  reason  for  proclaiming  it  as  fit 
to  become  a  universal  system.  Since  the  failure  of  these  latter 
portions  of  the  system  their  successors  have  had  none. 

When  beaten  at  all  other  points  of  the  controversy,  the  final 
reserve  argument  with  which  the  metric  advocates  seek  to  silence 
all  opposition  to  their  system  is  the  desirability  of  uniformity. 

Throughout  the  world  and  throughout  all  history  peoples  of  all 
nationalities,  races  and  tongues  have  divided  the  circle  into  360 
degrees.  This  and  the  division  of  the  day  into  24  hours  are  the 
two  existing  examples  of  absolute  uniformity.  The  logic  of  the 
metric  advocates  may  be  equal  to  reconciling  their  great  aim 
of  uniformity  with  their  advocacy  of  the  400  degree  circle,  but 
that  of  ordinary  mortals  is  not. 

*  In  his  letter  to  Engineering  News  for  April  16,  1903,  the  chief  dif- 
ficulty which  Capt.  F.  A.  Mahan  can  see  to  prevent  the  "  more  rapid  ad- 
vancement "  of  the  400  degree  circle  is  that  "  The  tables  of  sines  and 
tangents  for  the  centessimal  system  have  not  yet  been  prepared  with  the 
great  care  and  accuracy  which  have  been  bestowed  on  those  of  the  90 
degree  system." 


THE  "COKFUSION"  OF  OUK  WEIGHTS  AND 
MEASUKES. 

The  metric  advocates  are  fond  of  dwelling  upon  a  supposed 
confusion  of  our  weights  and  measures  which  exists  in  their 
•imagination  only.  They  refer  to  our  different  pints,  pounds, 
quarts,  gallons,  and  tons  as  productive  of  a  babel  of  confusion. 
Except  for  our  two  tons  (of  which  more  presently)  these  different 
units  produce  no  conf^iswn  because  they  are  used  for  different 
and  perfectly  well  understood  purposes.  Was  any  reader  of  these 
pages  ever  confused  in  the  slightest  because  the  quart  by 
which  peanuts  are  sold  differs  from  that  by  which  milk  is  sold? 
The  difference  between  our  liquid  and  dry  measures  is  a  favorite 
subject  of  ridicule,  but  it  loses  its  point  in  the  face  of  the  fact, 
which  is  shown  in  preceding  pages,  that  the  French  people  still 
use  their  old  dry  and  liquid  measures. 

Few  of  the  readers  of  these  pages  have  ever  seen,  as  I  have 
never  seen,  a  troy  pound  weight,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  prac- 
tically non-existent.  Troy  weight  is  used  for  weighing  gold  and 
silver,  and  for  nothing  else.  Moreover,  for  that  purpose  (see  any 
statistical  report  of  the  production  of  these  metals)  the  pound 
is  never  used — gross  amounts  being  given  in  thousands  of  ounces, 
never  in  pounds.  The  use  of  the  troy  ounce  for  this  purpose  is 
strictly  analogous  to  the  use  of  the  carat  for  weighing  gems  which, 
as  has  been  shown,  is  universal  in  France  and  Germany  as  it  is 
here.  The  apothecary's  weight  again  is  a  special  system,  used  by 
physicians  and  druggists  alone,  and  does  not  enter  into  the  life 
of  the  average  citizen,  not  one  in  a  thousand  of  whom  knows  or 
needs  to  know  the  signs  for  designating  the  apothecary's  weights. 
If  the  physicians  and  druggists  prefer  to  use  a  special  system  of 
weights  for  their  own  purposes  it  concerns  no  one  else,  and 
confuses  no  one  else,  while  if  a  change  would  be  to  their  ad- 
vantage no  action  of  Congress  is  needed  to  bring  it  about. 

Eegarding  the  confusion  which  undoubtedly  exists  between  our 
two  tons,  will  it  be  any  less  among  three  ?  Will  it  be  any  easier 
to  get  rid  of  our  long  ton  after  the  adoption  of  the  metric  ton  of 
2,204  pounds  than  now?  The  persistence  of  our  long  ton  is  an 
object  lesson  in  the  persistence  of  old  units  even  when,  as  in  this 
case,  the  two  units  are  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  a  nuisance.  If, 


THE   METRIC   FALLACY.  109 

after  a  half  century  of  effort,  we  are  unable  to  get  rid  of  our 
long  ton,  what  prospect  is  there  that  we  will  ever  get  rid  of  all 
our  other  units  ?  The  long  ton  is  a  standing  object  lesson  of  the 
difficulty  of  changing  units  of  weight  and  measure. 

It  is  not,  however,  our  only  object  lesson.  The  illustration  below 
is  a  facsimile  reproduction  of  the  caption  of  a  recent  map  of 
Angelina  County,  Texas,  issued  by  the  Angelina  Orchard  Com- 
pany of  Boston. 


ffooo  VQTVS  to  the  inch 


•3  varas  equals  afou23  ft, 

•*• 

TITLE  OF  A  TEXAN  MAP. 

Texas  was  ceded  to  the  United  States  by  Mexico  in  1845  but 
land  is  still  measured  there  by  the  Spanish  vara.* 

The  above  instances  may  be  legitimately  cited  as  examples  of 
confusion  in  our  weights  and  measures.  The  sensible  method  of 
getting  rid  of  such  superfluous  units  is  to  discontinue  their  use, 
while  the  metric  plan  is  to  get  rid  of  them  by  adding  others. 
Stripped  of  all  its  sophistries  the  metric  programme  says  that 
because  these  few  cases  show  the  enormous  difficulty  of  changing 
a  few  things,  therefore  let  us  change  everything. 

In  a  broad  sense  the  "  confusion  "  of  our  weights  and  measures 
is  an  absolute  fiction — a  figment  of  the  metric  imagination. 
There  is  but  one  inch,  one  foot,  one  yard,  one  commercial  pound, 
one  liquid  and  one  dry  quart,  f  used  throughout  this  country,  and 
as  has  been  stated  above,  the  liquid  and  dry  quarts  produce  no 
confusion  because  they  are  used  for  distinct  and  perfectly  well 
understood  purposes.  For  illustrations  of  wide-spread  confusion 
we  must  go  to  so-called  metric  countries. 

This  has  been  shown  in  previous  pages,  but  one  feature  of  it 
should  be  emphasized — the  existence  of  numerous  units  of  the 
same  name  and  used  for  the  same  purposes,  but  having  different 

*  This  map  is  not  the  only  evidence  in  my  possession  of  this  fact.  The 
vara  is  also  a  legal  unit  of  measure  in  California. 

t  The  dry  gallon  does  not  exist.  No  American  reader  of  these  pages 
ever  bought  or  sold  anything  by  the  dry  gallon. 


110  THE  METRIC   FALLACY. 

values  in  different  districts  and  even  towns.  This  condition  of 
things  may  fairly  be  called  confusion,  and  to  it  this  country  is, 
and  always  has  been,  a  stranger.  Numerous  examples  of  this  may 
be  found  in  the  table  of  Non-Metric  Units  Used  in  Metric 
Countries  (page  60  ante).  The  well  known  book,  Commercial 
Trade  Requirements,  published  by  Louis  Scribner  &  Co.,  contains  a 
table  of  foreign  units  of  about  twice  the  length  of  the  Government 
table  from  which  my  own  was  drawn. 

It  was  this  condition  in  France  which  originally  led  to  the  con- 
ception of  the  metric  system  as  il;  was  this  which  has  led  to  its 
adoption  wherever  it  has  been  adopted — a  statement  which  is 
especially  and  conspicuously  true  of  Germany — a  country  which 
is  held  up  to  us  as  our  great  exemplar,  but  the  example  counts 
for  nothing.  When  the  German  Empire  was  formed  the  various 
States  had  each  its  own  units,  which  still  survive,  as  has  been 
pointed  out.  The  necessity  of  getting  rid  of  such  a  condition  of 
things  was  obvious.  State  jealousy  made  the  adoption  of  the 
system  of  any  one  State  impossible,  and,  as  the  only  way  out, 
the  country  turned  to  the  metre.  Germany  adopted  the  metre 
in  order  to  do  away  with  confusion  j  our  adoption  of  it  will  only 
make  confusion. 

The  facts  are  thus  expressed  by  M.  de  L'Espee,  who  has  already 
been  quoted  in  connection  with  the  conditions  prevailing  in  France 
and  Brazil : 

"The  third  advantage  of  the  system,  viz.,  the  substitution  of  a  uniform, 
unchangeable  standard  for  the  endless  confusion  of  standards  that  pre- 
vailed in  France  and  in  other  countries  prior  to  its  adoption,  is  well  known 
to  have  been  the  main  cause  for  its  creation. 

"  It  is  not  necessary  here,  as  was  the  case  with  Prance  a  century  ago,  to 
introduce  order  and  uniformity  in  an  inextricable  confusion  of  provincial 
standards.  There  is  as  full,  complete,  scientific  and  uniform  a  system  in 
existence  as  could  be  wished  for:  the  foot,  the  pound,  the  acre  used  in 
Liverpool,  are  identical  with  the  foot,  the  pound  or  the  acre  used  in  New 
York  or  San  Francisco.  Thus  the  advantage  of  uniformity  which  France, 
Germany,  Brazil,  etc.,  could  not  secure  until  they  had  adopted  the  metric 
system,  has  already  been  secured  here  under  the  present  system,  and  this 
all-important  reason  in  favor  of  a  change  is  lacking." 

Every  such  condition  favored  the  change  in  Germany;  every 
such  condition  opposes  it  here.  We  have  seen  a  little  of  the  task 
which  the  system  has  laid  on  Germany,  but  that  task  is  as  noth- 
ing compared  with  ours.  Comparison  between  the  development 
of  German  industries  thirty  years  ago  and  our  own  day  there  is 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  Ill 

none,  and  every  added  industry,  every  mill,  every  machine,  every 
material  thing  we  have,  is  another  kedge  anchor  to  the  inch. 
If  some  of  our  units  are  redundant  and  hence  confusing  the  com- 
mon-sense method  of  improving  matters  is  to  drop  them  and 
retain  the  others.  The  metric  proposition,  on  the  contrary,  is  to 
get  rid  of  redundant  units  by  the  addition  of  more  units.  The 
metric  advocates  expect  to  secure  uniformity  by  introducing 
diversity — to  obtain  the  results  of  subtraction  by  the  process  of 
addition. 

The  change  *  which  elsewhere  it  was  vainly  hoped  might  do 
away  with  confusion  can  only  produce  confusion  here.  The 
reasons  which  have  led  other  nations  to  adopt  the  system  are  thus 
exactly  the  reasons  which  should  lead  the  Anglo-Saxon  nations  to 
have  nothing  to  do  with  it.  So  far  as  our  metric  advocates  are 
concerned,  the  uniformity  which  they  seek  to  establish  is  the  very 
thing  which  they  will  in  fact  destroy,  the  confusion  which  they 
seek  to  destroy  they  will  in  fact  establish. 

The  metric  advocates  are  fond  of  pointing  to  the  practice  of 
weighing  grain  as  an  evidence  of  the  confusion  of  our  weights 
and  measures.  Thus  at  the  hearings  of  the  House  Committee 
Mr.  Shaffroth  (page  14)  said : 

"  The  number  of  pounds  vary  which  go  into  a  bushel.  Some  States 
have  56  pounds  to  the  bushel  and  others  have  60  pounds  to  the  bushel 
and  it  varies  all  along  the  line;  also  the  number  of  pounds  of  oats  to  the 
bushel  varies." 

The  farmer  naturally,  and  indeed  necessarily,  measures  his 
grain.  When  it  gets  on  the  railroads  and  in  the  elevators,  how- 
ever, it  is  as  necessarily  weighed.  Since  the  density  of  different 
grains  varies,  the  weight  allowed  per  bushel  varies  accordingly, 
and  likewise,  since  the  density  of  the  same  grain  grown  in  differ- 
ent sections  varies,  the  allowance  per  bushel  varies  in  the  different 
States — these  allowances  being  simply  attempts  to  average  the 
weight  per  bushel  in  the  various  States.  This  practice  is  incident 
to  the  conversion  of  a  primary  market  measure  of  capacity  into 
one  of  weight,  and  it  could  not  be  affected  by  the  adoption  of 
the  metric  system. 

The  criticism  of  the  English  system  because  different  grains 
and  the  same  grain  from  different  localities  possess  different 
weights  per  bushel  is  as  rational  as  would  be  a  criticism  based  on 
the  fact  that  iron  and  copper  possess  different  weights  per  cubic 
inch. 


THE  COMPLICATIONS  DUE  TO  A  MIXTUEE  OF  UNITS. 

Among  those  who  really  believe  that  there  is  an  appreciable 
saving  of  time  in  making  calculations  by  the  metric  system  it  is 
customary  to  assume  that  with  the  spread  of  the  system  the 
gain  will  be  progressive — a  partial  use  of  the  system  giving  a 
portion  of  the  gain.  Nothing  could  be  further  from  the  fact. 
The  mixed  use  of  two  sets  of  units  involves  repeated  conversions 
from  one  to  the  other  with  a  great  resulting  loss. 

Consider  the  mixed  use  of  units  due  to  the  selling  of  English 
sizes  of  bar  iron  by  the  kilogramme,  as  described  in  Mr.  Canby's 
letter  from  Mexico  (page  55  ante).  Suppose  it  is  desired  to  calculate 
the  weight  in  kilogrammes  of  a  certain  number  of  metres  of  !•£- 
inch  bar  iron.  In  no  English  and  in  no  metric  table  can  the  weight 
of  l|-inch  bar  iron  per  metre  be  found.  The  size  of  the  bar  must 
be  converted  into  millimetres  to  use  a  metric  table,  or  the  metres 
of  length  to  feet  in  order  to  use  an  English  table.  If  the  former 
course  be  followed  the  resulting  metric  size  cannot  be  found  in 
any  metric  table,  because  English  and  metric  sizes  are  not  the 
same.  The  second  course  will  therefore  naturally  be  followed, 
and  an  English  table  will  be  consulted  where  will  be  found  the 
weight  of  the  bar  per  foot.  This  must  then  be  multiplied  by  the 
ratio  between  the  foot  and  the  metre,  and  the  result  by  the  ratio 
between  the  pound  and  the  kilogramme  in  order  to  obtain  the 
weight  in  kilogrammes  per  metre  of  length.  That  is,  two  multi- 
plications are  involved  in  finding  the  weight  per  unit  of  length — 
a  quantity  that  is  found  directly  from  the  tables  when  either 
system  is  used  alone. 

Again  it  is  desired  to  find  the  size  of  rolled  I  beam  to  carry  a 
given  load,  the  span  being  in  metres  and  the  load  in  kilogrammes, 
but  the  beam  to  be  used  is  to  be  taken  from  existing  American 
sizes.  No  table  exists  in  which  the  capacity  of  an  American  size 
beam  can  be  found  in  kilogrammes.  The  dimensions  of  the  cross 
section  of  the  beam  must  be  converted  into  millimetres  or  the  span 
must  be  converted  into  feet  and  the  load  into  pounds.  If  the  former 
course  be  adopted  the  resulting  metric  cross  section  cannot  be 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  '     113 

found  in  any  metric  table  and  the  latter  course  must  be  resorted 
to.  That  is,  the  designer  will  convert  his  metric  data  into  English 
units  and  use  his  English  tables  as  he  does  now,  these  conversions 
representing  so  much  added  labor. 

The  above  illustrations  relate  to  the  simplest  of  cases.  What 
the  use  of  a  mixture  of  units  actually  involves  may  be  seen  from 
Mi\  Dale's  description  of  the  calculations  which  are  to-day  being 
made  in  Germany  in  order  to  determine  the  cost  of  a  piece  of 
worsted  cloth  (page  25  ante). 

The  above  illustrations  show  the  futility  of  the  suggestion 
made  by  Mr.  Christie  at  the  discussion  of  the  Mechanical  En- 
gineers : 

"  The  works  of  French  and  German  engineers  are  at  least  as  voluminous 
as  ours  and  we  would  need  to  do  little  more  than  reprint  their  tables." 

This  -suggestion  is  especially  unfortunate.  A  German  table  of 
the  flow  of  water  in  pipes  is  applicable  to  German — that  is,  metric 
— sizes  of  pipe  only,  and  similarly,  a  German  table  of  the  strength 
of  beams  is  applicable  to  German — that  is,  metric — sizes  only. 
These  tables  could  not  be  used  in  connection  with  our  sizes  of 
pipes  or  beams.  If  we  are  to  express  volumes  of  water  and 
loads  on  beams  in  metric  units,  and  continue  our  existing  stand- 
ards of  pipes  and  beams,  we  must  have  new  tables.  When 
our  pipes  and  beams  are  changed  to  metric  dimensions  we  shall 
need  a  third  set  of  tables,  and  during  the  transition  period  we 
shall  have  repeated  use  for  all  three  sets.  This  whole  subject 
of  technical  literature  leads  to  the  most  hopeless  confusion. 

The  above  paragraph  illustrates  the  fact,  which  has  been  en- 
larged upon  by  Mr.  Wm.  Kent  in  Engineering  News  for  Feb- 
ruary 19,  1903,  that  during  the  transition  period  we  must  have  a 
system  of  transition  technical  literature — a  suggestion  which 
alone  is  sufficient  to  demonstrate  the  hopeless  impracticability  of 
the  scheme. 

The  case  for  technical  literature  was  never  better,  albeit  uncon- 
sciously, expressed  than  by  Dr.  F.  A.  P.  Barnard — in  his  lifetime 
the  leader  of  the  American  pro-metric  forces.  In  excusing  the 
failure  of  the  centessimal  division  of  the  quadrant  he  said  (The 
Metric  System  of  Weights  and  Measures,  page  85)  : 

"  To  change  the  law  of  circular  division  was  to  introduce  diversity 
where  uniformity  prevailed  before  and  also  to  destroy  the  usefulness  of 


114  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

a  vast  scientific  literature  which  had  been  founded  on  the  sexagessimal 
division."  * 

So  also  to  change  the  law  of  linear  division  will  destroy  the 
usefulness  of  a  vast  technical  literature  which  has  been  founded 
on  the  English  system. 

It  is  not,  moreover,  necessary  to  go  to  technical  sources  for 
these  illustrations.  Imagine  a  retail  merchant  to  buy  his  goods 
in  metres  and  kilogrammes,  and  to  sell  them  in  yards  and  pounds, 
or  a  wholesale  merchant  to  sell  to  some  customers  by  the  metric 
and  to  others  by  the  English  system,  or  a  manufacturer  to  make  his 
goods  by  one  system  and  to  sell  by  the  other — as  textile  manu- 
facturers are  doing  to-day  throughout  metric  Europe.  One  or 
all  of  these  conditions  must  arise  during  the  transition  period, 
and  all  would  give  rise  to  endless  transformations  between  the 
systems,  all  of  which  represent  so  much  added  labor. 

The  inevitable  mixture  of  units  negatives  also  the  persistent 
assertions  of  the  metric  advocates  that  the  adoption  of  the  system 
is  to  save  a  valuable  portion  of  the  school  life  of  all  children. 
If  the  old  units  are  to  endure  for  an  indefinite  period,  as  all 
experience  shows  they  will,  they  must  be  taught  in  the  schools. 
The  learning  of  the  metric  system  will  therefore  represent  so 
much  added  labor  as  the  learning  of  the  relations  of  the  two 
systems  will  represent  still  more.  The  work  of  the  school 
children  will,  therefore,  be  increased,  not  diminished. 

*  This  is  by  no  means  the  worst  of  Dr.  Barnard's  inconsistencies.  His 
Metric  System  of  Weights  and  Measures  contains  in  an  appendix  a  dis- 
cussion of  "  The  Unification  of  Moneys."  To  this  Dr.  Barnard  was  op- 
posed, his  argument  being  based  on  the  difficulty  of  the  change,  and  this  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that,  according  to  John  Quincy  Adams,  a  change  in  cur- 
rency is  "  a  revolution  by  all  experience  known  to  be  infinitely  more  easy 
to  accomplish  than  that  of  weights  and  measures." 


EXAMINATION  OF  THE  CLAIMS  OF  SUPEEIOEITY" 
FOE  THE  METEIC  SYSTEM. 

The  keynote  of  my  argument  for  a  time  will  be  that  the  whole 
matter  is  a  bagatelle;  that,  in  short,  the  trifling  advantages,  if, 
indeed,  there  be  any  advantages  at  all,  to  be  obtained  by  the  adop- 
tion of  the  metric  system  are  not  for  a  moment  to  be  compared 
with  the  enormous  cost  of  making  the  change.  Every  thinking 
man  knows  that  a  duodecimal  system  of  numbers  would  be  better 
than  the  present  decimal  system,  but  no  one  is  so  foolish  as  to 
seriously  propose  a  change,  and  the  cases  are  exactly  parallel. 

On  its  merits,  then,  I  claim  that  the  metric  system  is  a  bagatelle. 
Admit  all,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  metric  advocates 
have  claimed  regarding  the  fundamental  superiority  of  the  sys- 
tem and  we  admit  nothing.  The  pro-metric  argument  is  that 
the  decimal  basis  and  the  interrelation  of  the  units  of  length,  of 
capacity,  and  of  weight  greatly  simplify  and  abbreviate  calcula- 
tions. That  is  all,  for  when  it  comes  to  actually  measuring  things 
no  one  claims  that  it  cannot  be  done  just  as  readily  by  the  English 
system;  and,  in  fact,  if  there  is  any  argument  from  this  stand- 
point it  is  that  the  English  system  is  better  than  the  French  sys- 
tem. 

In  support  of  this  claim  of  superiority  for  the  purposes  of  cal- 
culation, the  standard  illustration  relates  to  the  calculation  of  the 
volume  and  weight  of  a  tank  of  water;  and,  in  fact,  at  the  close 
of  the  pamphlet  giving  the  testimony  before  the  House  com- 
mittee— a  pamphlet  which,  as  a  matter  of  duty,  I  have  read  from 
the  first  page  to  the  last — are  some  comparative  tables  showing 
the  number  of  figures  involved  in  such  calculations  by  the  two 
systems.  Now  the  weak  point  of  this  exhibit  is  that  to  very  few 
people  is  the  weight  of  a  tank  of  water  of  any  consequence  what- 
ever. Of  the  members  of  this  society  of  engineers  I  doubt  if 
10  per  cent,  ever  had  to  determine  the  weight  of  a  tank  of  water 
or  the  pressure  on  its  bottom.  This  illustration  is  contemptible 
in  its  littleness.  The  calculations  of  this  nature  which  engineers 
have  to  make  relate  to  the  weights  of  masses  of  the  materials  of 


116  THE   METRIC   FALLACY. 

construction — iron,  steel,  brass,  masonry,  etc. — and  the  procedure 
is  the  same  by  either  system;  we  multiply  the  length  by  the 
breadth  and  the  thickness,  and  then  multiply  the  product  by  a 
constant  for  the  material.  With  the  metric  system  that  con- 
stant is  the  specific  gravity,  and  with  the  English  system  it  is  the 
weight  per  cubic  inch.  That  is  all,  and  when  summed  up  the 
difference  in  the  procedure  is  simply  that  between  tweedle  dee 
and  tweedle  dum. 

When  it  comes  to  the  claim  that  this  metric  system  reduces  the 
labor  involved  in  the  calculations  of  every-day  life  enough  to  be 
a  matter  of  public  moment  whatever,  it  simply  is  not  so. 

No  dimension  on  a  machine  drawing  above  9  millimetres  (about 
f  inch)  is  ever  expressed  by  a  single  digit,  and  none  above  9 
centimetres  (about  3^  inches)  by  two  digits.  In  English  units  9 
feet  may  be  expressed  with  one  figure,  and  99  feet  with  two. 
Talk  about  simplicity.  A  metric  drawing  is  a  wilderness  of 
figures. 

Even  the  assumed  simplicity  of  decimal  fractions  is  to  a  large 
degree  fictitious.  Compare  the  following  table  of  equivalents : 

i  =  .3333  +  f0-  =  .0166  +  -jV  =  .0625 

i  =  .25  -A  =  .0143  +  -3Y=  -03125 

*=.2  A  =.0126  &  =.015825 

i  =  .1666  +  &  =  .0111  +  .  ¥K  =  -0028  + 

|  =.1428+  ^=.005  ^=.0022  + 

i=.125  ^=.0033+  7rir?=.0018  + 
£  =  .1111  + 

Read  some  of  these  expressions  aloud.  One-eighth  equals  one 
hundred  twenty-five  thousandths;  one  sixtieth  equals  one  hundred 
sixty-seven  ten  thousandths;  one  thirty-second  equals  three  thou- 
sand one  hundred  twenty-five  hundred  thousandths.  Can  any 
one  say  that  the  decimal  equivalents  give  as  clear  a  mental  picture 
of  their  value  as  the  vulgar  fractions?  They  never  do,  except 
where  the  decimal  is  small,  and  this  explains  why  people  insist 
on  using  vulgar  fractions. 

The  superiority  of  the  decimal  system  as  applied  to  currency 
is  largely  due  to  the  great  amount  of  adding  to  be  done.  With 
day  book,  journal,  ledger,  cash  book,  trial  balance,  balance  sheet, 
invoice  inward  and  invoice  outward  alike,  it  is  add,  add,  add,  and 
then  add  some  more.  The  amount  of  adding  to  be  done  in  con- 
nection with  money  is  both  relatively  and  absolutely  out  of  all 
comparison  with  that  involved  in  connection  with  weights  and 
measures.  When  it  comes  to  multiplication  or  division,  vulgar 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  117 

fractions  are  often  the  simpler.  The  comparisons  drawn  between 
currency  and  weights  and  measures  will  not  bear  examination. 

Some  very  striking  testimony  on  the  subject  of  the  compara- 
tive labor  of  calculations  by  the  two  systems  was  offered  before  the 
House  committee  by  Mr.  J.  H.  Linnard,  a  naval  architect  of  the 
Navy  Department,  who  learned  his  profession  in  France,  where 
he  spent  four  years  studying  naval  architecture  in  the  metric 
system,  which  profession  he  has  practised  since  1887  in  this 
country,  where,  of  course,  he  has  used  the  English  system. 
Here  is  a  man  who  may  fairly  be  said  to  know  what  he  is  talk- 
ing about,  and,  moreover,  one  would  expect  his  predilections  to 
favor  the  metric  system,  as,  in  his  schooldays,  naval  architec- 
ture and  the  metric  system  were  part  and  parcel  of  the  same  thing. 
Nevertheless  he  testified  (page  183):  "As  far  as  calculations  in 
the  matter  of  shipbuilding  are  concerned,  it  is  just  as  convenient 
in  every  way,  shape,  and  form  to  use  English  measurements  as 
French." 

Such  testimony  cannot  be  ignored.  It  is  worth  more  than  all 
the  essays  and  a  priori  arguments  that  can  be  written  from  now 
until  doomsday.  There  is  probably  no  branch  of  engineering 
which  involves  so  many  or  such  laborious  calculations  as  ship  de- 
signing. It  may  be  regarded  as  the  crux  of  the  whole  matter. 
Moreover,  in  connection  with  many  of  the  problems  of  the  naval 
architect  the  pet  tank  of  water  illustrations  would  seem  to  apply 
directly,  but,  unfortunately,  the  naval  architect  has  to  deal  with 
salt  water,  which  has  a  greater  specific  gravity  than  fresh  water, 
and  so  these  pretty  illustrations  fail  to  apply  even  here.  If  the 
Creator  would  kindly  make  the  earth  over  again  and  fill  the  seas 
with  distilled  water  the  case  might  be  different. 

The  following  testimony  from  another  article  by  Mr.  Hess, 
published  in  the  American  Machinist  for  October  16,  1902,  is 
even  more  striking,  because  Mr.  Hess,  before  his  practical  ex- 
perience with  the  metric  system,  was  an  advocate  of  it: 

Some  years  since  I  was  asked  to  sign  a  petition  to  Congress  asking  that  the 
metric  system  of  measurements  be  officially  adopted  as  the  legal  American 
standard.  In  common  with  many  others  I  complied,  under  the  impression  that 
the  ease  of  reckoning  with  decimals  and  the  convenience  of  a  logically  harmonious 
system  would  be  sufficient  to  compensate  for  all  troubles,  fancied  and  real, 
incidental  to  the  change.  Since  then  actual  experience  with  the  metric  system 
has  led  to  a  revision  of  views,  so  that  to-day  I  am  decidedly  "  on  the  fence/' 

That  the  metric  system  is  a  really  satisfactory  solution  of  the  problem  is, 
to  say  the  least,  doubtful.  The  convenience  of  its  units  as  to  size  is  debatable; 


118  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

but  it  is  very  likely  that  no  series  of  units  can  be  generally  satisfactory.  The 
requirements  of  the  various  arts  and  sciences  are  far  too  varied  for  that.  The 
best  unit,  or  series  of  units,  is  one  that  does  not  involve  large  figures. 

That  argument  of  the  advocate  of  the  metric  system  that  its  unit,  the  metre, 
is  a  natural  one,  a  certain  definite  portion  of  the  earth's  diameter  [sic],  may  be 
at  once  dismissed;  it  has  already  been  proven  that  the  metre's  relation  to  the 
earth's  diameter  is,  or  was,  not  reliably  known. 

There  remains  the  other  chief  claim — convenience  in  reckoning,  owing  to 
the  metric  system  having  been  built  up  on  the  decimal  plan.  This  is  really 
a  very  alluring  claim,  but  will  not  bear  close  scrutiny.  The  decimal  system  is 
only  in  part  more  convenient  than  a  binary  system,  but  not  wholly  so,  or  even 
more  so.  It  is  in  fact  more  uncertain  in  arithmetical  operations  than  the  decid- 
edly faulty  English  system.  This  statement,  directly  opposed  to  my  precon- 
ceived notions  of  a  few  years  ago,  is  advanced  as  a  result  of  direct  experience 
with  the  metric  system,  extending  now  over  three  years.  Having  been  gradually 
led  to  this  conclusion  I  determined  to  put  it  to  a  practical  test.  A  certain  prob- 
lem— not  made  up  specially  for  the  occasion,  but  cropping  up  in  regular  practice 
— was  submitted  to  seven  draughtsmen  and  designers,  some  of  them  of  more  than 
average  attainments,  and  all  of  them  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  metric  system, 
through  having  used  it  almost  exclusively  in  their  practice  and  schooling.  The 
correct  result  was  arrived  at  by  only  three  of  the  seven  men. 

The  problem  was  at  first  given  to  but  one  man,  and  only  the  obviously  wrong 
result  led  to  its  being  handed  over  to  the  others.  The  difficulty  lay  in  the  cor- 
rect location  of  the  decimal  point ;  with  one  exception  all  had  the  correct  numerals, 
but  the  men  were  apparently  lost  in  the  maze  of  decimal  figures. 

The  same  problem  with  equivalent  values  in  English  units  was  then  handed 
out.  The  correct  result  was  arrived  at  by  six  out  of  seven  men  in  an  average 
of  two-thirds  the  time  taken  for  its  solution  in  the  metric  system,  showing  that 
the  percentage  of  error  was  very  much  less  and  the  time  considerably  less  with 
the  binary  system,  notwithstanding  the  relative  unfamiliarity  of  the  men  with 
the  units  of  the  binary  system. 

A  decimal  system  is  not  as  convenient  as  a  binary  system  in  mathematical, 
draughting-room  or  shop  work  at  least  so  far  as  mechanical  engineering  is 
concerned. 

Additional  testimony  adverse  to  the  claims  for  the  saving  of 
time  in  calculations  are  given  in  the  following  extract  from  a 
letter  from  Mr.  A.  M.  Mattice,  chief  engineer  of  the  Westing- 
Louse  Electric  and  Manufacturing  Company: 

For  a  number  of  years  I  have  had  more  or  less  occasion  to  have  drawings  made 
In  the  metric  system.  My  experience  has  been  that  foreign  draughtsmen  who  were 
originally  brought  up  in  the  use  of  the  metric  system,  and  later  come  to  this  coun- 
try and  worked  in  theEnglish  system,  and  have  become  as  skilled  in  the  use  of  the 
latter  as  in  the  use  of  the  former,  will  work  more  rapidly  on  drawings  in  English 
measures  than  on  those  where  the  metric  system  is  used.  One  of  the  reasons  for 
this  is  the  greater  ease  of  using  an  easily  sub-divided  system  like  the  English. 
Another  reason  is  the  greater  ease  of  quickly  picking  out  a  dimension  on  scales  in 
the  English  system. 

The  following  incident  is  of  interest  in  this  connection :  During  a  visit  to  Europe 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  119 

last  summer,  a  party  of  us  v  sited  the  Oerlikon  Electrical  Works  in  Switzerland. 
We  were  shown  over  their  works  by  their  chief  draughtsman,  Mr.  Leon  von  Muralt, 
who  was  for  several  years  with  the  Westinghouse  Electric  and  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany, East  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  and  is  thoroughly  acquainted  with  American  practice. 
One  of  our  party  asked  Mr.  von  Muralt  the  result  of  his  experience  in  the  English 
and  metric  systems.  He  replied  without  hesitation  that  "  for  drawings  and  shop 
use  he  considered  the  English  system  the  more  practical,  but  for  calculations  the 
metric  system  had  the  advantage."  As  calculations  form  a  very  small  part  of  an 
industrial  establishment,  and  as  the  greater  part  of  commercial  calculations  are 
nowadays  made  by  the  slide  rule  or  other  calculating  instruments,  the  advantage 
cited  by  Mr.  von  Muralt  would  not  be  appreciable. 

I  might  mention  another  instance,  as  follows :  The  chief  engineer  of  our  French 
Company  (Societe  Anonyme  Westinghouse),  Mr.  W.  E.  Reed,  was  transferred 
from  the  parent  company  to  the  French  company  about  three  years  ago.  All  the 
construction  work  of  this  company  is  necessarily  done  in  the  metric  system.  Mr. 
Reed,  is,  of  course,  thoroughly  conversant  with  the  metric  system  and  is  brought 
into  contact  with  it  hourly.  Notwithstanding  this,  Mr.  Reed  makes  all  his  cal- 
culations, except  those  in  connection  with  transformers,  in  the  English  system, 
and  simply  translates  his  final  results  into  metric  measures.  He  does  this  for  the 
reason  that  all  of  the  formulae  and  constants  which  he  uses  were  learned  in  the 
English  system,  and  it  is  easier  to  continue  the  use  of  them  than  to  relearn  them 
in  the  metric  system.  In  the  case  of  transformers,  all  the  formulae  and  constants 
which  he  uses  have  been  worked  out  by  him  since  he  joined  the  French  company, 
and  for  convenience  he  worked  them  out  in  the  metric  system.  This  case  is  an 
example  of  the  difficulty  of  attempting  to  break  loose  from  an  existing  system, 
where  the  newsystem  does  not  offer  sufficient  advantages  to  induce  one  to  make  a 
change.  If,  after  three-years'  experience  in  the  metric  system,  Mr.  Reed  had 
found  that  he  could  work  more  rapidly  by  calculating  in  the  metric  system,  he 
would  undoubtedly  have  done  so. 

Another  example:  Mr.  Otto  C.  Reymann,  mechanical  engineer  of  the  same 
company,  is  a  German  and  received  his  technical  education  at  Charlottenburg  and 
Zurich,  where,  of  course,  the  only  system  of  measures  used  was  the  metric.  Mr. 
Reymann  spent  about  six  years  in  practical  work  in  this  country,  where  he  became 
accustomed  to  the  use  of  the  English  system.  He  has  now  been  with  the  French 
Westinghouse  Company  nearly  five  years,  where  he  is  daily  brought  into  contact 
with  the  metric  system.  Notwithstanding  this,  he  does  all  his  thinking  and  cal- 
culating in  the  English  system  and  translates  his  final  results  into  the  metric  sys- 
tem. 

Messrs.  Reed  and  Reymann  are  both  on  a  visit  to  this  country  at  the  present 
time,  and  I  have  to-day  talked  with  them  about  this  matter.  I  had  previously 
heard  that  Mr.  Reed  still  worked  in  the  .English  system  and  he  has  confirmed  that 
understanding.  It  was  not  until  to-day  that  I  knew  that  Mr.  Reymann  was  also 
using  the  English  system.  In  his  case  it  would  be  natural  to  suppose  that,  having 
been  brought  up  in  the  use  of  the  metric  system,  when  he  went  back  to  Europe 
he  would  have  gone  back  to  the  use  of  that  system  if  it  possessed  the  great  advan- 
tages which  are  claimed  for  it  by  its  advocates. 

Against  such  experiences  as  these  should  be  placed  a  sample  of 
the  sort  of  stuff  that  passed  as  testimony  at  the  hearings  of  the 
House  Committee.  Said  Mr.  Candler  (page  79) : 


120  THE    METRIC    FALLACY. 

"  Some  gentleman  testified  here  the  other  day  that  in  making  calcula- 
tions in  the  two  systems  the  time  required  is  about  fifteen  minutes  in 
one  system  and  about  two  hours  in  the  other  system.  That  is  about  the 
proportion." 

The  foregoing  testimony  comes  from  such  sources  that  it  can- 
not fail  to  command  respect.  Ignore  it  all,  however,  and  what 
does  the  pro-metric  argument  for  the  saving  of  time  in  cal- 
culations amount  to  ?  Suppose  the  labors  of  naval  architects  and 
engineers  generally  were  appreciably  lightened  by  the  use  of 
the  metric  system,  what  would  it  amount  to  ?  What  is  the  pro- 
portion of  engineers  to  the  public  at  large,  and  how  much  would 
the  aggregate  saving  amount  to?  Figure  up  the  aggregate  if  it 
can  be  done,  and  then  divide  it  by  the  number  of  the  population, 
and  how  many  seconds  per  day  for  each  man  would  be  obtained  ? 
This  explains  what  I  meant  in  saying  that  if  the  arguments  of 
the  metric  advocates  be  admitted  the  admission  amounts  to  noth- 
ing. As  an  economic  factor  in  the  life  of  this  people,  I 
insist  that  the  saving  of  time  due  to  the  use  of  the  metric  system 
in  calculation  is  an  absolute  bagatelle.  No  microscope  ever  mag- 
nified material  things  to  the  extent  that  the  importance  of  this 
matter  has  been  magnified.  I  cannot  express  my  contempt  for 
the  argument  that,  in  order  to  lessen  the  labor  of  a  man  here 
and  there  throughout  the  country,  this  nation  should  be  put  to 
the  confusion  and  turmoil  involved  in  tearing  up  by  the  roots 
the  most  fundamental  feature  of  its  commercial  and  industrial 
life.  The  proposition  is  unthinkable.  Talk  about  special  legis- 
lation; the  words  do  not  describe  it.  The  only  field  in  which  the 
interrelation  of  the  units  cuts  any  considerable  figure  is  the  elec- 
trical field.  This  narrows  the  issue  still  more.  Shall  we  do  this 
for  the  electrical  engineers? 

Again,  what  is  it  all  for?  Such  a  change  as  this  is  justifiable 
only  in  case  of  great  and  manifest  advantages.  Why,  then, 
should  we  embark  on  this  movement,  the  end  of  which  no  man 
can  foresee,  when  its  advantages,  granting  them  to  exist,  are  so 
slight  and  so  elusive  that — with  unexcelled  opportunities  for  com- 
parison— the  gentlemen  quoted  above  cannot  find  them? 

In  this  connection  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  another  matter. 
Engineers  are  no  longer  subject  to  the  drudgery  of  calculations. 
For  the  past  twenty  years  an  instrument  for  this  purpose  has 
been  growing  in  use,  until  it  has  become  almost  universal  among 
engineers  below  middle  life,  its  use  being  taught  as  a  matter  of 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  121 

course  in  our  engineering  colleges.  I  refer  to  the  slide  rule, 
which  has  become  almost  as  familiar  a  thing  on  an  engineer's 
desk  as  well  as  on  those  of  many  commercial  men,  as  a  lead-pencil 
or  a  pair  of  dividers.  It  performs  all  the  ordinary  calculations 
of  life,  except  addition  and  subtraction,  so  quickly  that  there  is 
nothing  left  for  the  metric  system  to  save,  and  as  an  economic 
factor  in  the  life  of  the  American  people  it  is  worth  twenty  metric 
systems.  These  people  consider  us  a  lot  of  mossbacks  and  old 
fogies.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  they  who  are  twenty  years 
behind  the  times,  for  they  do  not  know  that  the  drudgery  of  cal- 
culations is  already  a  thing  of  the  past. 

For  instance  in  calculating  constructive  weights,  no  one 
to-day  would  do  it  except  by  the  slide  rule.  For  this  the  small 
numbers  due  to  the  large  units  of  the  English  system  are  dis- 
tinctly superior  to  the  large  numbers  due  to  the  small  French 
units.  With  the  former  we  determine  the  decimal  point  instinc- 
tively, while  with  the  latter  we  must  keep  tab  on  the  decimal  point. 

Putting  the  little  slide  rule  alongside  the  great  systeme  uni- 
verselle  may  appear  to  some  like  standing  Jack  the  Giant  Killer 
alongside  his  victims,  but  do  not  forget  the  final  result. 

Moreover,  the  entire  argument  for  this  saving  of  time  in  calcula- 
tion is  based  on  the  tacit  assumption  that  the  old  units  will  become 
extinct  since,  if  they  are  to  be  used,  they  must  appear  in  calcula- 
tions. When,  as  in  French  and  German  textile  industries,  the 
old  and  new  units  are  used  conjointly,  there  is  an  actual  loss  of 
many  times  the  theoretical  gain. 

Witness  the  closing  of  the  grave  over  a  century  of  delusion 
regarding  a  wonderful  saving  of  time  in  calculations,  to  be  ob- 
tained by  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system. 


THE  FOBEIGN  TBADE  ABGUMEOT. 

As  a  matter  of  public  policy  the  only  view  of  this  question 
which  is  of  any  moment,  is  that  which  asserts  that  the  adoption 
of  the  metric  system  is  necessary  in  the  interests  of  foreign  trade. 
If  this  view  were  true  as  a  general  proposition — which  I  shall 
show  it  is  not — it  would  still  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  govern- 
mental action.  There  are  a  few  parts  of  one  line  of  machines 
which  it  is  important  to  have  made  in  accordance  with  the  system 
of  measurements  employed  by  the  user.  In  making  such  ma- 
chines for  countries  using  the  metric  system,  our  manufacturers 
have  adapted  themselves  to  this  fact,  and  if  they  are  half  as 
astute  as  we  all  believe  them  to  be,  they  may  be  depended  upon 
to  so  continue.  A  manufacturer  is  certainly  in  far  closer  touch 
with  his  customers  than  any  government  can  be,  and  this  subject, 
which  is  so  interwoven  with  all  business  interests,  is  the  last  one 
in  wrhich  what  has  been  called  "  the  clumsy  hand  of  legislation  " 
should  interfere. 

The  machine-building  industry  is  the  foundation  industry  of 
modern  life,  while  the  machine  tool-building  industry  is  the  foot- 
ing course  of  the  foundation.  It  is  by  these  machines  that  all 
machines — including  themselves — are  made.  In  this  distinction 
they  stand  apart  from  all  other  products  of  human  skill,  and 
when  one  is  in  a  machine  tool-building  shop,  he  may  be  very  sure 
that  he  is  witnessing  the  primal  industry  of  our  time.  This  is 
the  absolute  zero  of  modern  industry. 

The  man  who  buys  machines  of  this  class  does  so  in  order  to 
make  other  machines.  By  them  all  parts  of  all  machines  are 
made  to  the  required  size. 

If  this  assertion  that  export  trade  requires  the  adoption  of  the 
metric  system  were  true  at  all,  it  would,  for  this  reason,  be  doubly 
true  in  connection  with  machine  tools.  What,  however,  are  the 
facts?  Of  all  the  developments  of  our  export  trade  in  the  last 
half-dozen  years,  none  has  been  more  pronounced  than  in  this 
class  of  machines.  In  number  and  variety  those  sent  abroad 
have  been  legion,  and  of  all  countries  of  the  world  Germany  has 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  123 

been  our  best  customer,  with  France  not  far  in  the  rear.  I  have 
made  it  my  business  to  inquire  how  many  and  what  changes  ma- 
chine tool-builders  have  found  called  for  by  their  foreign  cus- 
tomers, and  the  answer  settles  this  contention.  I  have  said  in  the 
appendix  that  one  of  the  Cincinnati  milling  machines  contains 
18,300  dimensions;  of  these  that  company  has  found  occasion  to 
make  two  to  metric  dimensions,  these  being  the  pitches  of  the 
traversing  and  elevating  screws  of  the  milling  machine  table. 
These  two  screws  are  distinctly  measuring  screws,  and  the  need 
of  their  being  made  to  metric  pitches  is  obvious  to  any  mechanic. 
The  lead  screw  of  lathes  is  a  similar  measuring  screw,  and  this 
likewise  in  many — though  by  no  means  all  cases — must,  when 
sent  to  metric-system  countries,  be  made  to  metric  pitch.  These 
three  screws  comprise  all  the  parts  of  the  hundreds  of  parts  of 
the  thousands  of  machine  tools  sent  abroad  that  have  needed 
change*  while  in  steam  engines,  mining,  agricultural,  and  other 
lines  of  machinery  no  changes  whatever  have  been  called  for. 
That  there  may  be  no  possible  doubt  about  the  facts  being  as 
stated,  I  refer  to  the  action  of  the  Cleveland  (October,  1902)  Con- 
vention of  the  National  Machine  Tool  Builders'  Association,  which 
condemned  the  bill  now  before  Congress,  among  other  reasons 

"  Because  the  sale  of  many  million  dollars'  worth  of  machine  tools  has 
been  made  abroad  by  members  of  this  association,  especially  to  France 
and  Germany,  without  requirement  or  request  by  the  purchasers  for 
changes  in  general  construction  to  conform  to  metric  measurements,  the 
only  changes  being  in  adjusting  and  measuring  screws,  the  great  majority 
of  machines  needing  no  changes  whatever." 

At  the  discussion  of  this  subject  before  the  Mechanical  En- 
gineers, letters  in  confirmation  of  the  above  facts  were  presented 
from : 

Bullard  Machine  Tool  Co., 

Denver  Engineering  Works, 

Gould  &  Eberhardt, 

Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon   Company, 

Lane  &  Bodley  Company, 

Lodge    &    Shipley    Machine    Tool    Company, 

*  This  should  be  understood  as  meaning  that  these  are  all  of  the  changes  that 
I  have  been  able  to  find.  No  doubt  there  are,  here  and  there,  in  machine  tools, 
adjusting  screws  analogous  to  those  named  which  have  needed  changing,  but 
the  essential  fact  is  that  the  changes  have  been  absolutely  infinitesimal,  and  that, 
so  far  as  general  construction  is  concerned,  no  changes  whatever  have  been 
needed. 


124:  THE   METRIC   FALLACY. 

Cincinnati  Milling  Machine  Company, 
Lunkenheimer  Company, 
American  Tool  Works  Company, 
Baldwin  Locomotive  Works, 
Cincinnati  Machine  Tool  Company, 
Cincinnati  Shaper  Company, 
I.  &  E.  Green wald  Company, 
Cincinnati  Planer  Company, 
Beats  Machine  Tool  Company, 
Northern  Engineering  Works, 
Greaves  Kinsman  &  Co., 
Cincinnati  Punch  &  Shear  Company, 
Bradford  Machine  Tool  Company, 
Fosdick  Machine  Tool  Company, 
J.  H.  Day  Company, 
Aurora  Tool  Works, 
Sabastian  Lathe  Company, 
Schumacher  &  Boye, 
Belmar  Machine  Tool  Company, 
John  Steptoe  Company. 

Letters  were  received  in  indorsement  of  the  metric  system  from  the  fol- 
lowing: 

Godfrey  L.  Cabot,  Boston,  Mass. 

E.  W.  Lyttle  of  the  College  Department,  University  State  of  New  York. 

Rufus  P.  Williams,  Pres.  New  England  Association  of  Chemistry 
Teachers. 

Elihu  Thomson  of  the  General  Electric  Company. 

Of  those  who  thus  indorsed  the  system  the  first  and  last  only  are  man- 
ufacturers. 

Further  confirmation  of  these  facts  is  found  in  the  letter  by 
M.  Benet,  of  Hotchkiss  &  Cie,  Paris,  of  which  portions  have 
already  been  given.  He  says : 

Practically  the  question  has  no  personal  interest  for  me,  as  we  of  course  work 
in  our  own  shops  to  the  metric  system,  and  this  has  in  no  way  prevented  us  from 
doing  .a  large  business  with  the  Governments  of  the  United  States,  England, 
Russia,  and  other  countries.  We  are  using  a  very  large  amount  of  American 
machinery  in  our  works,  and  the  fact  that  this  was  all  built  to  English  measures 
has  given  no  difficulty.  Of  course  the  leading  and  cross  feed  screws  are  supplied 
to  metric  pitch,  but,  as  you  say,  this  involves  two  dimensions  out  of  the  many 
thousands  that  enter  into  the  drawings  of  a  machine.  All  of  the  newer  and  most 
up-to-date  establishments  in  France,  including  all  of  the  Government  establish- 
ments, are  largely  equipped  with  American  machinery,  and  I  know  of  no  case 
where  the  fact  of  the  machines  being  built  to  English  measures  affected  their  sale 
ability. 

I  believe  that  the  passage  of  the  proposed  bill  will  be  the  cause  of  much  loss  of 
accumulated  wealth,  of  much  confusion,  and  that  the  adoption  of  the  metric  sys- 
tem will  in  no  way  affect  the  trade  of  the  United  States  for  the  better. 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  125 

I  have  one  fact  to  add  which  is  still  more  striking.  The  Chand- 
ler &  Taylor  Company,  of  Indianapolis,  build  saw-mills,  which 
they  export  largely,  having  specially  large  markets  in  Central 
and  South  America — metric  using  countries,  according  to  our 
friends  of  the  other  side — and  for  whom  Chandler  &  Taylor  have 
issued  a  Spanish  catalogue.  A  saw-mill  has  a  feed  works  com- 
posed of  levers,  gears,  etc.,  by  which  the  log  is  fed  forward  after 
each  cut,  and  by  this  gear  the  thickness  of  the  boards  is  deter- 
mined, this  feed  gear  being  regularly  made  to  cut  the  boards  to 
English  dimensions  Six  years  ago  the  Chandler  &  Taylor  Com- 
pany inserted  in  their  Spanish  catalogue  a  statement  that,  on  re- 
quest and  without  extra  charge,  they  would  make  this  gear  to  cut 
the  boards  to  metric  dimensions,  but,  unless  otherwise  specified, 
they  would  furnish  the  English  gear,  and  up  to  April,  1902,  not 
cne  inquiry  or  request  for  the  metric  gear  had  come  in. 

The  statement  that  goods  must  be  made  to  metric  dimensions 
in  order  to  sell  in  metric  countries  is  as  broad  as  it  is  long.  It 
simply  asserts  that  in  order  to  sell,  goods  must  be  made  in  accord- 
ance with  the  system  of  measurements  used  by  the  purchaser, 
and  from  it  it  follows  that  in  order  to  sell  here,  goods  must  be 
made  in  accordance  with  the  English  system.  What,  however, 
are  the  facts  ?  For  forty  years  the  Sellers7  injector  has  been  made 
to  metric  dimensions  (excepting  always  the  screw  threads),  and 
no  one  was  ever  heard  to  object  to  it  on  that  account.  There  are 
a  dozen  other  American  makers  of  injectors,  all  of  whom,  I 
believe,  use  the  English  system,  and  no  one  can  say  that  at 
least  some  of  them  do  not  make  good  injectors.  A  purchaser  who 
objects  to  the  metric  dimensions  of  the  Sellers  instrument  can 
certainly  satisfy  his  wants  elsewhere,  but  I  am  not  aware  that 
any  one  has  ever  been  heard  to  raise  the  objection. 

Another  illustration  is  found  in  the  Willans  and  Robinson 
engine  which,  in  the  newer  sizes,  is  made  to  metric  measure- 
ments for  sale  in  England.  If  metric  engines  sell  in  England 
why  will  not  English  engines  sell  in  metric  countries  ?  The 
adoption  of  the  metric  system  by  the  metric  party  for  the  manu- 
facture of  engines  for  sale  in  England  is  a  striking  refutation 
from  their  own  mouths  of  their  constant  assertion  that  goods 
must  be  manufactured  in  accordance  with  the  system  of  measure- 
ments used  where  they  are  to  be  sold. 

We  may,  however,  take  a  broader  view  of  the  matter.  From 
the  Monthly  /Summary  of  Commerce  and  Finance,  published  by 


126  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

the  Treasury  Department,  I  learn  that  during  the  year  ending 
June  30,  1902,  there  were  imported  into  this  country  J>4&_Q4100,- 

000  worth  of  manufactured  and  semi-manufactured  goods,  which 
sum  does  not  include  $265,0000,000  Avorth  of  "  articles  of  voluntary 
use,  luxuries,"  etc.,  some  of  which  were  probably  manufactured. 

According  to  our  metric  friends  all  of  these  goods,  except 
those  from  England  and  her  colonies,  are  from  metric  countries, 
and  perforce  must  be  made  in  accordance  with  the  metric  system. 

1  am  unable  to  determine  the  percentage  of  metric  goods  from 
the  tables  given,  but  did  any  one  ever  hear  of  a  single  instance 
in  which  such  goods  were  objected  to  because  they  were  not  made 
in  accordance  with  the  English  system? 

In  buying  a  machine,  for  example,  the  customer  needs  to  know 
certain  facts,  and  these  facts  should  be  given  him  in  language 
he  can  understand.  Among  such  facts  are  the  weight,  the  length, 
width,  height,  and  the  capacity.  If  the  machine  is  a  planer,  for 
example,  the  customer  must  be  told  the  largest  size  of  work 
which  it  will  do,  as  well  as  its  weight  and  over  all  dimensions, 
in  his  own  language,  which  includes  his  system  of  weights  and 
measurements.  To  give  such  facts  in  the  metric  system  no  more 
involves  the  adoption  of  the  system  than  the  furnishing  of  a 
catalogue  in  the  German  language  involves  the  adoption  of  that 
language.  That  the  foreign  customer  should  care  whether  the 
working  parts — the  shafts,  the  gears,  the  levers,  etc. — are  made 
to  metric  dimensions  or  not  is  ridiculous.  Machines  are  sold  by 
their  operating  qualities,  the  price,  and  the  time  of  delivery,  and 
not  by  the  fact  that  a  certain  shaft  is  25  millimetres  in  diameter 
instead  of  1  inch. 

Just  as  the  idea  of  using  metric  equivalents  for  existing  di- 
mensions has  misled  many  mechanics,  so  this  need  of  the  foreign 
purchaser  for  such  information  in  units  with  which  he  is  familiar 
has  misled  many  commercial  men.  They  imagine  that  because 
a  foreign  buyer  needs  such  leading  weights  and  measurements  aa 
would  be  given  in  a  specification  or  in  a  letter  describing  the 
article  offered  for  sale  in  metric  units,  that  therefore  it  is  neces- 
sary to  adopt  the  metric  system  in  factory  operations.  The  use  of 
metric  units  in  this  descriptive  or  specification  way  when  writing 
to  a  prospective  German  customer,  for  example,  is  exactly  analo- 
gous to  use  of  the  German  language  under  the  same  circumstances. 
Both  serve  to  put  the  information  which  the  customer  wants  in 
terms  which  he  can  readily  understand. 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  127 

The  experience  of  a  century  has  shown  that  the  idea  of  a  uni- 
versal system  of  weights  and  measures  is  an  "  iridescent  dream." 
We  must  make  up  our  minds  to  get  along  with  divers  systems  of 
weights  and  measures  in  the  world  as  we  do  with  divers  languages 
and  systems  of  currency.  Translations  between  them  must  be 
made  and,  as  regards  commercial  information  of  all  kinds  in- 
tended for  foreign  buyers,  the  question  is  who  shall  make  them  ? 
Shall  the  manufacturer  do  it  like  a  sensible  man  or  shall  he 
require  his  customer  to  do  it  and  therefore  jeopardize  his  trade  ? 
This  matter  of  giving  commercial  information  in  the  customer's 
own  language  of  weights  and  measures  is  all  that  remains  of  the 
many  calls  from  our  foreign  consuls  for  the  adoption  of  the 
metric  system. 

"  But/7  say  the  metric  advocates,  "  why  not  adopt  the  system 
in  manufacture  and  so  save  the  labor  of  these  conversions  ? " 
which  is  equivalent  to  asking,  why  not  climb  a  mountain  to  avoid 
stepping  over  an  ant  hill?  To  make  these  conversions  involves 
nothing  in  manufacturing,  plant,  method,  or  equipment;  it  in- 
volves nothing  but  the  occasional  use  of  conversion  tables  by 
comparatively  few  people,  while  the  alternative  involves  an  up- 
heaval and  reorganization  of  industries  at  a  cost  which  pen  can 
riot  picture  nor  words  describe. 

At  his  notable  inaugural  address  as  rector  of  St.  Andrew's  Uni- 
versity, Scotland,  Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie  urged  upon  the  nations 
of  Europe  the  necessity  of  an  alliance  against  this  country,  and 
told  them  bluntly  that  unless  they  agreed  to  something  of  this 
kind,  all  they  could  look  forward  to  was  to 

Revolve  like  so  many  Lilliputians  around  this  giant  Gulliver,  the  American 
Union. 

Can  Europe,  as  long  as  she  remains  divided  into  hostile  camps,  ever  hope  to 
conquer  foreign  markets  or  even  to  repel  the  American  invasion?  Never. 

America  now  makes  more  steel  than  all  the  rest  of  the  world.  In  iron  and 
coal  her  production  is  greatest,  and  it  is  also  so  in  textiles.  She  produces  three- 
quarters  of  the  world's  cotton.  The  value  of  her  manufactures  is  about  triple 
that  of  your  own.  Her  exports  are  greater,  and  the  clearing-house  exchanges 
at  New  York  are  almost  double  those  of  London. 

If  the  metric  system  is  necessary  in  the  interests  of  foreign 
trade,  as  the  metric  advocates  assert,  why  has  the  "  American  in- 
vasion "  made  such  progress  in  the  continent  of  Europe  ?  Why 
have  our  exports  of  manufactured  goods  increased  during  the  past 
half-dozen  years  at  a  rate  which  is  unexampled  in  the  history  of  the 
world  ? 


ANALYSIS   OF  THE  BILL. 

Following  is  the  text  of  the  bill  as  reported  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  by  the  Committee  on  Coinage,  Weights  and 
Measures.* 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of 
America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  on  and  after  the  first  day  of  January,  nine- 
teen hundred  and  four,  all  the  Departments  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  transaction  of  all  business  requiring  the  use  of  weight  and  measure- 
ment, except  in  completing  the  survey  of  public  lands,  shall  employ  and  use  only 
the  weights  and  measures  of  the  metric  system ;  and  on  and  after  the  first  day  of 
January,  nineteen  hundred  and  seven,  the  weights  and  measures  of  the  metric 
system  shall  be  the  legal  standard  weights  and  measures  of  and  in  the  United 
States. 

The  Attorney-General  has  given  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  terms 
of  the  bill  do  not  make  the  use  of  the  system  compulsory  in  general 
business  transactions,  and  the  thoughtless  may,  therefore,  conclude 
that  there  is  no  cause  for  alarm. 

No  one  can  read  the  pamphlet  to  which  I  have  referred  so  often 
without  seeing  behind  this  whole  movement  the  spirit  of  compul- 
sion. 

Thus  after  Mr.  Christie  had  deprecated  compulsion,  Mr. 
Shaffroth  said  (page  8)  :  "  I  will  state  that  it  is  about  the  only  way  it 
has  been  introduced.  Germany  adopted  it  by  compulsory  stat- 
ute of  the  Reichstag,  and  I  do  not  see  how  you  can  do  it  any 
other  way."  (And  he  was  quite  right.)  Again  Dr.  Stratton 
(page  153)  was  asked  by  Mr.  Gaines:  "  You  would  make  the  law 
compulsory?"  to  which  he  replied  (italics  mine):  "  That  would 
depend  upon  the  time  allowed  for  its  adoption" 

The  belief  by  the  metric  advocates  that  this  bill  will  bring 
about  the  general  use  of  the  system  by  the  people  at  large  illus- 
trates the  beginnings  of  metric  legislation  everywhere.  In  the 
sections  on  the  persistence  of  old  units  in  various  countries  it 
has  already  been  shown  that  the  plan  of  this  bill — the  adoption 

*  The  text  as  given  is  from  the  Journal  of  the  Western  Society  of  Engineers  for 
August,  1902. 


THE   METRIC   FALLACY.  .  129 

of  the  system  for  government  purposes — has  already  been  tried 
in  Cuba,  Guatemala,  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  San  Salvador, 
Greece  and  Egypt,  and  in  no  case  has  the  adoption  of  the  system 
by  the  people  followed.  Nowhere  has  the  system  been  intro- 
duced among  the  people  except  by  compulsion.  The  difficulty 
of  the  change  has  been  ridiculously  underestimated  and  law  after 
law  has  been  passed  to  make  previous  laws  effective.  The  in- 
clusion of  English  yarn  counts  in  the  German  tariff  schedule,  of 
which  particulars  have  been  given,  represents  the  defeat  of  an 
attempt  to  make  previous  laws  effective  by  compelling  the  ex- 
clusive use  of  the  metric  system  in  German  textile  industries. 
The  interests  adversely  affected  made  such  an  outcry  as  to  defeat 
the  bill  as  originally  drawn. 

The  article  by  M.  Lamoitier,  from  which  extracts  have  been 
given  in  the  section  relating  to  the  persistence  of  old  units  in 
Erance,  closes  with  a  strong  appeal  for  another  law  to  compel  the 
use  of  the  system  in  French  textile  industries.  And  this  in  Erance 
after  a  century  of  the  metric  system !  He  has,  it  may  be  added, 
the  same  cheerful  confidence  in  the  sufficiency  of  one  more  law 
to  accomplish  the  purpose  that  our  metric  advocates  have  in  the 
sufficiency  of  the  bill  now  before  Congress  to  bring  about  this 
great  change  among  us  in  from  three  to  five  years. 

The  objectionable  feature  of  this  hill  is  that  it  is  a  compulsory 
measure  as  regards  all  who  do  business  with  the  Government,  and 
that  it  can  do  nothing  hut  create  endless  confusion  in  our  weights 
and  measures. 

Studious  attempts  to  minimize  the  bill  were  made  at  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  Mechanical  Engineers.  Thus  Mr.  Southard  said: 

"  It  does  not  mean  anything  in  a  compulsory  way.  There  is  not  a  word 
in  this  bill  looking  to  compulsion.  Compulsion  was  not  thought  of  in 
connection  with  the  matter." 

Mr.  Southard  was,  however,  submitted  to  a  cross  examination 
by  the  members  with  the  following  result: 

Q.  You  tell  us,  Mr.  Southard,  that  this  is  intended  for  the  regulation  of 
the  business  of  the  departments  of  the  Government? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Does  that  mean  the  internal  business  of  the  departments,  or  all 
transactions,  including  those  with  parties  outside  the  Government  service? 

A.  It  means  that  in  all  transactions  of  the  Government  requiring  the 
use  of  weights  and  measures  the  metric  weights  and  measures  shall  be 
used. 


130  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

This  I  take  it  is  a  sufficient  admission  that  the  bill  is  com- 
pulsory so  far  as  those  who  deal  with  the  Government  are  con- 
cerned. Any  other  conclusion  is  plainly  absurd.  The  case  is 
exactly  parallel  with  that  of  the  Eight  Hour  Bill.  That  bill  is 
intended  to  compel  all  manufacturers  who  supply  the  Govern- 
ment with  goods  to  employ  their  workmen  eight  hours  only,  and 
the  Metric  System  Bill  is  likewise  intended  to  compel  those  same 
manufacturers  to  use  the  metric  system.  No  one  will  pretend 
that  the  Eight  Hour  Bill  is  not  compulsory,  and  no  one  can 
rightly  claim  that  the  Metric  System  Bill  is  not,  in  the  same  way 
and  to  the  same  degree,  compulsory.  To  claim  that  it  is  not 
thus  compulsory  is  more  than  untrue;  it  is  ridiculous — each  bill 
says  in  effect,  "  Do  this  or  withdraw  from  Government  business.7' 

The  metric  advocates  are  loud  in  their  protestations  that  they 
do  not  believe  in  compulsion,  and  they  thus  occupy  the  unique 
position  that  while  they  disclaim  compulsion  they  favor  a  com- 
pulsory law. 

It  is  not  easy  for  a  layman  to  determine  the  meaning  of  the 
term  "  legal  standard."  Judging  by  the  words  of  those  who  ought 
to  know  (for  example,  Mr.  Shaffroth,  page  8  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  House  Committee),  the  phrase  means  that  after  January  1, 
1907,  the  metric  system  is  to  be  used  in  all  actions-at-law  into 
which  weights  and  measures  enter. 

"  Productions  could  be  made  to  any  desired  standard,  but  in  the  courts, 
for  instance,  testimony  would  refer  to  metric  measurements.  If  work 
was  done  according  to  any  other  standard,  dimensions  would  have  to  be 
converted  to  a  metric  standard  in  the  event  of  legal  testimony  being  re- 
quired." 

As  I  have  said,  the  effect  of  the  bill,  so  far  as  any  real  adop- 
tion of  the  system  is  concerned,  is  certain  to  be  abortive,  and  its 
real  effect,  so  far  as  the  general  public  is  concerned,  will  be  to 
compel  the  use  in  actions-at-law  of  a  system  of  weights  and  meas- 
ures with  which  neither  witnesses,  jurymen,  lawyers,  nor  judges 
will  be  familiar. 

As  regards  the  adoption  of  the  system  in  the  Government  busi- 
ness, it  is  uncertain  what  is  meant  by  it,  except  that  the  metric 
advocates  are  determined  that  all  Government  purchases  shall 
bear  the  metric  label.  If  this  provision  of  the  bill  means  that 
Government  purchases  of  machinery  are  to  be  made  in  good  faith 
to  the  metric  system,  as  that  term  is  understood  in  France  and 
Germany,  then  in  many  lines  the  Government  will  go  without 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  131 

machinery  altogether,  and  it  will  pay  exorbitant  prices  in  others, 
If,  under  the  stress  of  these  circumstances,  enforcement  of  the 
law  is  relaxed,  and  we  do  with  the  Government  as  we  now  do  with 
foreign  customers — give  the  weight,  over  all  dimensions,  swing 
and  extreme  length  of  work  a  lathe  will  take  in,  for  example — and 
call  that  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system,  then  the  Government 
will  be  the  manager  and  the  Government  officials  the  actors  in 
the  greatest  farce-comedy  of  recent  years. 

That  the  metric  system  can  become  our  real  factory  system 
of  production  within  any  reasonable  time  the  experience  of  other 
countries  abundantly  proves  to  be  impossible,  and  the  requirement 
that  the  system  be  used  in  all  Government  work  can  do  nothing 
more  than  to  force  the  adoption  of  a  special  system  for  that  work; 
in  other  words,  and  in  the  name  of  simplification,  compel  the  use 
of  two  systems  where  we  now  have  one. 


THE  OBJECT  OF  THE  BILL. 

Until  the  discussion  at  the  December,  1902,'  meeting  of  the 
American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers,  it  was  assumed  as 
a  matter  of  course  that  the  object  of  the  Metric  System  Bill 
which  was  reported  to  the  57th  Congress  was  to  bring  about  the 
general  adoption  of  the  system  in  the  commerce  and  industries 
of  the  American  people.  This  was  plainly  the  object  in  the 
minds  of  those  who  appeared  before  the  House  Committee,  as 
may  be  seen  from  the  extract  from  their  statements  given  in  the 
section  on  The  Pro-Metric  Argument,  It  was  also  plainly  the 
object  as  understood  by  Mr.  Shaifroth,  the  Member  of  Congress 
who  introduced  the  bill,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  remark  by 
him  (page  30) : 

"  The  bill  which  I  introduced  names  the  1st  day  of  January,  1903,  for 
the  Government  to  adopt  it  and  the  1st  of  January,  1904  *  when  the  people 
would  have  to  adopt  it." 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Mechanical  Engineers  the  metric  advo- 
cates represented  the  purpose  of  the  bill  as  entirely  different 
from  this. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Southard,  Chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on 
Coinage,  Weight  and  Measures  which  reported  the  bill  said  that: 

"  The  purpose  of  this  bill  is  to  secure  uniformity  in  Government  trans- 
actions, and  for  the  further  purpose  of  having,  as  far  as  possible,  some 
kind  of  a  trial  of  the  merits  of  the  metric  system,  without  seriously  in- 
volving the  public  at  large.  For  one  bureau  to  use  it  and  another 
bureau  not  to  use  it,  would  not  do.  For  instance,  for  the  Internal  Revenue 
Bureau  to  use  it  and  the  Customs  Bureau  not  to  use  it,  would  result  in 
greater  confusion  than  we  now  have." 

Against  this  statement  by  Mr.  Southard  should  be  placed  the 
following  extracts  from  the  report  of  the  committee  of  which 
he  is  chairman,  by  which  report  the  bill  was  returned  to  Congress 
and  its  passage  recommended: 

"  Again  and  again  has  the  necessity  for  a  change  in  our  system  of 
weights  and  measures  been  urged  upon  the  attention  of  Congress.  *  *  * 

*  These  dates  were  subsequently  changed  to  1904  and  1907  respectively. 


THE   METRIC    FALLACY.  133 

The  failure  of  these  efforts  to  bring  about  the  adoption  of  a  better  system 
of  weights  and  measures  has  been  due,  etc.  *  *  *  The  advantages  to 
be  gained  by  the  adoption  of  the  metric  as  compared  with  the  one  in 
present  use  are  far  greater  than  the  benefits  derived  from  the  adoption 
of  a  decimal  system  of  coinage.  *  *  *  Certainly  any  effort  to  replace 
this  conglomerate  system  with  a  simple  logical  one  like  our  monetary 
system  is  worthy  of  the  consideration  of  Congress.  *  *  *  The  benefits 
to  be  derived  from  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  by  the  educational 
interests  of  the  country  are  perhaps  the  most  important,  etc.  *  *  * 
In  the  case  of  textile  fabrics,  materials  of  construction,  package  goods 
and  almost  all  kinds  of  manufactured  products,  a  change  would  no  doubt 
involve  some  inconvenience,  but.  etc.  *  *  *  The  use  of  the  old  system 
not  only  involves  great  loss  of  time  in  making  computations  but  places 
our  merchants  at  a  great  disadvantage,  etc.  *  *  *  The  necessity  for 
an  improvement  in  the  weights  and  measures  of  the  country  is  nowhere 
more  apparent  than  in  the  ordinary  business  transactions  of  daily  life. 
*  *  *  Your  committee  believe  the  time  has  come  for  the  gradual  re- 
tirement of  our  confusing  illogical  irrational  system  and  the  substitution 
of  something  better."  * 

Following  the  same  line  of  thought,  Professor  Stratton  said 
(italics  mine) : 

"  The  Government  has  never  enacted  laws  in  reference  to  standards,  ex- 
cept in  connection  with  its  own  work,  and  if  the  Government  sees  fit  to 
use  the  metric  system  of  weights  and  measures  in  some  or  all  of  the 
branches  of  its  work,  it  has  a  perfect  right  to  do  so.  This  would  involve 
its  use  only  in  such  work  as  originates  in  the  departments.  If  the  metric 
system  becomes  the  system  in  common  use  in  this  country  it  will  "be 
through  laws  enacted  on  the  part  of  the  different  States,  and  the  States 
have  not  fixed  standards,  except  for  commerce  and  trade.  A  great  deal 
of  concern  has  been  shown  as  to  the  situation  which  would  result  in  case 
the  bill  now  pending  before  Congress  becomes  a  law.  I  cannot  conceive 
any  other  condition  than  that  stated  above." 

In  other  words,  the  object  of  this  bill  is  to  create  a  special 
system-  of  weights  and  measures  used  by  the  Government  but 
not  by  others — a  proposition  which  is  exactly  comparable  with 
one  for  a  special  Government  system  of  currency.  According  to 
Professor  Stratton  the  bill  can  have  no  other  effect  than  this 
because,  "  if  the  metric  system  becomes  the  system  in  common 
use  in  this  country  it  will  be  through  laws  enacted  on  the  part 
of  the  different  States." 

The  reader  will,  however,  have  difficulty  in  reconciling  Pro- 

*  These  quotations  are  from  the  copy  of  the  report  published  in  the 
Journal  of  the  Western  Society  of  Engineers  for  August,  1902. 


134  THE   METIUC    FALLACY. 

fessor  Stratton's  statement  with  the  following,  which  he  gave  to 
the  House  Committee : 

"  The  problem  to  be  solved  is  how  this  change  in  weights  and  measures 
can  be  brought  about  with  the  least  inconvenience  to  all  concerned.  It  is 
evident  that  the  inconvenience,  expense  and  confusion  which  will  neces- 
sarily attend  such  a  change  will  not  be  lessened  with  time,  but  on  the 
contrary  will  be  the  more  difficult  the  longer  it  is  postponed." 

Mr.  Southard  says  that  the  object  of  the  bill  is  to  "  secure  uni- 
formity in  Government  transactions/7  which  is  precisely  what  we 
have  to-day  to  a  greater  degree  than  any  metric  country  on  earth. 
So  far  as  appears,  the  only  Government  purchases  now  made  by 
the  metric  system  are  the  medical  supplies  of  the  army,  and  Mr. 
Southard  proposes  that  the  transactions  of  the  customs,  internal 
revenue  and  postal  departments,  the  equipments  of  the  army  and  ' 
navy,  the  erection  of  public  buildings  and  the  improvement  of 
rivers  and  harbors  shall  all  be  changed  in  order  to  "  secure  uni- 
formity "  with  the  medical  supplies  of  the  army ! 

Mr.  Southard  should  have  read  the  following  from  a  letter  by 
Mr.  J.  II.  Ball,  of  Barcelona,  Spain,  to  the  American  Machinist: 

"  In  handling  the  numerous  machines  which  I  have  to  come  across  in 
my  business  I  find  only  two  nations  whose  measures  are  always  uni- 
form in  all  respects,  and  those  two  are  England  and  the  United  States." 

Which  is  the  more  important,  uniformity  between  the  Xavy 
Department  and  the  Medical  Bureau  of  the  War  Department  or 
uniformity  between  existing  and  future  ships  of  the  navy?  The 
Anglo-Saxon  nations  have  substantial  uniformity  to-day,  which 
no  metric  country  has  or  ever  has  had.  In  no  country  of  the 
world  has  the  metric  system  secured  uniformity;  but,  ignoring 
the  experience  of  the  world,  Mr.  Southard  proposes  to  abandon 
the  uniformity  which  we  have,  in  order  that  after  a  transition 
period  of  confusion  and  indefinite  length  we  may  again  reach 
uniformity.  Mr.  Southard  should  heed  the  words  of  John  Quincy 
Adams  (italics  mine)  : 

"Is  your  object  uniformity?  Then  before  you  change  any  part  of  your 
system,  such  as  it  is,  compare  the  uniformity  that  you  must  lose  with  the 
uniformity  that  you  may  gain." 

After  this  "  uniformity  "  is  brought  about  according  to  Pro- 
fessor Stratton  we  shall  continue  to  have  the  present  system  in 
common  use  until  the  State  legislatures  have  ordered  otherwise. 


THE    METRIC    FALLACY.  135 

That  is,  the  Government  will  use  one  system  and  the  public  will 
use  another,  and  this  is  to  be  called  uniformity. 

This  real  purpose  of  the  bill  was,  however,  stated  by  Mr.  Jas. 
Christie  at  the  discussion  of  the  Mechanical  Engineers : 

"  When  it  becomes  evident  that  the  time  is  ripe  for  it,  the  national  Gov- 
ernment can  inaugurate  the  system  in  its  own  departments,  whence  it  will 
soon  spread  through  the  manufactures  and  commerce  of  the  nation." 

The  sort  of  uniformity  which  this  bill  will  bring  about  is  well 
illustrated  by  the  statistics  of  the  Census  Reports.  Shall  the 
system  be  used  in  those  reports?  Then  in  the  name  of  uni- 
formity we  shall  have  an  abrupt  break  in  these  reports  and  no 
comparison  between  old  and  new  can  be  made  except  after  trans- 
lation. Shall  it  not  be  used?  Then  in  the  name  of  uniformity 
we  shall  have  the  business  of  the  country  done  under  one  system 
and  Government  reports  of  it  under  another. 

Nowhere  in  the  pamphlet  of  testimony  before  the  House  Com- 
mittee, nor  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  by  which  the  passage 
of  the  bill  was  recommended  does  the  idea  appear  that  the 
adoption  of  the  system  is  to  be  confined  to  the  Government,  nor 
that  the  purpose  of  the  measure  is  to  bring  about  uniformity  in 
the  departments.  The  whole  discussion  relates  to  the  adoption 
of  the  system  by  the  business  and  manufacturing  interests  of 
the  country,  the  Government  merely  taking  the  lead. 

The  bill,  however,  has  another  object  which  the  metric  advo- 
cates do  not  mention.  Regardless  of  all  present  disclaimers  it 
will  enable  them  to  shout  from  the  house  tops,  "  The  United 
States  has  adopted  the  metric  system." 

Along  with  these  remarkable  statements  went  others.  Thus 
Professor  Stratton  said: 

"  If  at  a  later  date  the  metric  system  is  made  the  sole  legal  standard,  it 
can  mean  no  more  than  that  all  business  of  the  departments  with  the 
public  must  be  carried  on  in  the  metric  system;  but  who  for  a  moment 
would  suppose,  even  in  this  case,  that  if  the  Government  should  buy  a 
machine  tool  the  parts  of  that  machine  would  necessarily  have  to  be  con- 
structed in  the  metric  system?  " 

Again  Mr.  F.  J.  Miller  said : 

"  My  belief  is  that  a  full  compliance  with  the  pending  law  will  be  se- 
cured when  a  machine  builder  simply  goes  on  manufactureing  his 
machines  as  he  does  now,  and  with  precisely  the  same  taps,  dies,  jigs, 
reamers,  and  all  other  tools  and  fixtures;  but  when  a  department  of  the 


136  THE   METRIC    FALLACY. 

Government  wants  a  machine  he  will  probably  be  required  to  state  all  the 
dimensions  given  in  the  specifications  in  millimetres." 

The  object  of  the  bill  then  appears  to  be  to  gratify  the  metric 
advocates  by  compelling  the  Government  departments  to  write 
their  specifications  in  the  metric  system  while  they  buy  the  same 
goods  that  they  have  always  had.  Is  it  for  this  petty  outcome 
that  the  House  Committee  is  holding  hearings  and  technical 
societies  are  having  discussions  and  taking  votes  ?  What  will  be 
the  gain  from  such  a  course  ?  Where  will  there  be  any  saving 
of  time  in  calculations  ?  With  such  commercial  measurements  in 
the  metric  system,  and  constructive  measurements  in  the  English 
system,  where  does  the  uniformity  come  in?  More  to  the  point, 
however,  it  must  be  remembered  that  these  gentlemen  are  not 
charged  with  making  Government  purchases,  nor  with  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  law  for  the  Government  departments.  When 
this  law,  reading  "  all  the  departments  ...  in  the  transac- 
tion of  all  business  .  .  .  shall  employ  and  use  only  the 
weights  and  measures  of  the  metric  system/'  reaches  the  Navy 
Department  through  an  executive  order,  what  right  will  Ad- 
mirals Bowles  and  Melville  have  to  interpret  the  word  only  in 
this  easy-going  way  ?  Mr.  Southard  thinks  "  the  officers  of  the 
Government  are  inclined  to  be  reasonably  accommodating."  It 
will  not  be  a  matter  of  inclination,  but  of  obeying  the  law. 

Finally,  I  would  like  these  gentlemen  to  explain  how  they 
reconcile  their  easy-going  interpretation  with  the  italicized  words 
of  the  following  extract  from  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney- 
General  : 

"  Indeed,  as  each  bill  *  prohibits  to  the  departments  the  use  of  any  other 
system,  by  a  familiar  rule  of  construction,  this  will  be  taken  as  the  only 
prohibition  intended,  and  it  will  end  there." 

The  sort  of  uniformity  which  the  metric  advocates  will  bring 
about  is  thus  described  by  John  Quincy  Adams  (italics  mine) : 

"  The  legislator  *  *  *  finishes  by  increasing  the  diversities  which  it 
was  his  intention  to  abolish  and  by  loading  his  statute  books  only  with 
the  impotence  of  authority  and  the  uniformity  of  confusion." 

*  Two  bills  appear  to  have  been  submitted  to  the  Attorney-General. 


CONCLUSION. 

The  changing  of  established  standards  is  impossible.  Their 
measurement  in  millimetres  is  equally  impossible.  Established 
standards  will,  therefore,  preserve  the  inch.  The  millimetre  may 
be  forced  into  use,  destroying  our  present  uniformity  and  intro- 
ducing the  diversity  which  everywhere  accompanies  the  use  of 
the  metric  system,  but  this  is  all  that  can  be  done.  These  people 
may  legislate  until  doomsday;  they  may  make  infinite  confusion, 
endless  turmoil,  limitless  sacrifice,  but  move  the  English  inch  ? — 
the  Archimedean  lever  is  still  unknown. 


THE  METRIC  FAILURE  IN  THE 
TEXTILE   INDUSTRY. 


Thus  in  this  one  pregnant  subject  of  Clothes,  rightly  understood,  is  included  all 
that  men  have  thought,  dreamed,  done,  and  been  :  the  whole  External  Universe  and 
what  it  holds  is  but  Clothing ;  and  the  essence  of  all  Science  lies  in  the  Philosophy 
of  Clothes. 

DIOGENES  TEUFELSDROCKH. 


THE  METRIC  FALLACY  AS  TO  TEXTILES. 

There  is  no  darkness  but  ignorance. — Twelfth  Night. 

The  Committee  on  Coinage,  Weights  and  Measures  of  the  last 
Congress  had  charge  of  the  bill  to  introduce  the  metric  system 
into  the  United  States,  to  substitute  an  "  entire  new  system  of 
weights  and  measures  for  one  long  established  and  in  general 
use,"  a  task  that,  in  the  words  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  "  is  one 
of  the  most  arduous  exercises  of  legislative  authority."  We  had, 
therefore,  every  reason  to  expect  that  legislators  resting  under 
such  great  responsibility  would  consider  the  question  cautiously, 
calmly  and  judiciously;  that  they  would  summon  expert  witnesses 
from  all  trades,  professions  and  occupations;  that  they  would 
be  eager  to  receive  information  on  both  sides  of  the  question, 
wholly  irrespective  of  their  own  personal  opinions;  that  if  any 
bias  was  shown  it  would  be  in  favor  of  the  Anglo-American  and 
not  the  French  system.  We  had  a  right  to  expect  that  before 
the  proposed  revolution  in  our  weights  and  measures  received 
the  sanction  of  the  committee  the  wisdom  of  the  step  would  be 
proved  beyond  a  doubt.  As  far  as  the  textile  industry  was  con- 
cerned these  expectations  were  wholly  disappointed. 

The  only  two  witnesses  who  appeared  as  textile  representatives 
at  the  hearing  before  that  committee  were  both  in  favor  of  the 
metric  system.  One  was  the  president  of  a  cotton  and  worsted 
yarn  and  dress  goods  mill ;  the  other  a  mechanical  engineer  and 
principal  of  a  textile  school.  The  committee  were  content  to 
accept  the  testimony  of  these  two  witnesses  as  conclusive  regard- 
ing the  effect  of  changing  the  standards  of  textile  manufactur- 
ing, which,  rated  by  the  number  of  employes,  is  the  chief  in- 
dustry in  the  United  States.  They  summoned  no  textile  oper- 
ative nor  overseer,  no  one  with  a  practical  knowledge  of  manu- 
facturing to  tell  them  what  this  change  of  standards  would  mean 
in  the  actual  work  of  converting  fibres  and  filaments  into  fabrics. 
They  did  not  consider  it  worth  while  to  summon  any  represent- 
ative of  the  great  American  silk  industry.  No  one  was  there  to 
represent  the  extensive  carded  woollen  industry.  No  manu- 


142  THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 

facturer  of  men's  wear  woollen  or  worsted  goods  appeared.  Xo 
one  was  there  to  speak  for  the  cotton  raising  and  wool  growing 
interests.  No  representative  of  the  linen,  hemp  or  jute  industry 
appeared  to  tell  the  committee  what  he  thought  of  the  plan  to 
drive  the  world's  linen,  hemp  and  jute  standard  from  this 
country.  No  one  came  from  the  cotton  cloth  industry  to  explain 
that  the  cotton  standard  which  they  sought  to  destroy  was  the 
standard  of  the  world.  ~No  knitter  of  underwear  or  hosiery,  no 
manufacturing  clothier  or  tailor  appeared.  Above  all,  no  one 
who  opposed  the  metric  system  in  the  textile  industry  was  called 
upon  to  express  his  views.  Such  men  were  not  invited.  The 
committee  accepted  without  question  statements  that  carried  the 
stamp  of  absurdity,  as  if  anxious  only  to  record  reasons,  no 
matter  how  flimsy,  to  support  a  conclusion  they  had  reached  in 
advance. 

Both  the  committee  and  the  two  witnesses  discussed  the  ques- 
tion with  the  calm  confidence  of  men  framing  the  textile  schedule 
of  a  tariff  bill,  as  if  they  need  but  say  the  word  to  shorten  the 
inch  and  lengthen  the  yard,  as  easily  as  they  had  once  lowered 
the  tariff  on  wool  and  raised  it  on  worsted  top. 

Of  the  213  lines  of  testimony  of  the  first  witness  only  26 
related  to  textile  weights  and  measures.  Liberal  extracts  were 
given  from  an  address  by  an  astronomer  who,  after  soaring  into 
the  clouds  of  speculation  and  prophecy,  came  down  to  earth  and 
gave  the  result 'of  a  count  he  had  made  of  all  kinds  of  pounds, 
feet,  inches,  pints,  etc.,  including  not  only  American  standards 
of  these  denominations,  but  also  the  German  fuss  and  zoll,  the 
French  pied  and  pouce,  and  a  medley  of  units  in  other  countries, 
reaching  the  imposing  total  of  53  kinds  of  miles,  235  different 
pounds  and  29  sorts  of  pints.  All  this  was  presented  to  convince 
the  committee,  as  the  witness  admitted  it  had  convinced  him,  that 
the  Anglo-American  textile  industry  should  have  the  incommen- 
surable kilogramme-metre  added  to  its  present  single  world-wide, 
yard-pound  standard. 

The  witness  told  the  committee  he  did  not  know  how  many, 
but  "  probably  "  600,000,000  people  "  use  "  the  metric  system. 
This  statement  brought  forward  no  protest  although  no  country 
on  earth  has  made  the  metric  'System  its  textile  standard,  and  the 
only  countries  having  a  single  textile  standard  and  where  direct 
textile  calculations  are  possible  are  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States,  with  a  population  of  more  than  475,000,000. 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 

He  advocated  the  metric  system  because  of  its  "  simplicity," 
yet  it  is  certain  that  its  nomenclature  is  cumbersome,  the  size  of 
its  units  badly  suited  for  mill  work,  and  textile  calculations  by  it 
are  as  laborious  if  not  more  so  than  by  the  English  system. 

He  told  the  committee  how  "  economical "  it  would  be  to  intro- 
duce the  system  into  this  free  country  in  1902 ;  that  then  the 
Frenchman  will  not  be  thinking  of  the  metre  while  the  American 
is  thinking  of  the  English  yard,  and  while  the  witness  was  speak- 
ing the  French  textile  wrorker  was  thinking,  working  and  figuring 
in  a  maze  of  yards,  metres,  aunes,  kilogrammes,  pouces,  sous, 
moques,  deniers  and  Paris  pounds. 

He  thought  that  "  at  least  two  years'  notice  "  of  the  change 
ought  to  be  given  to  the  American  people,  "  say  the  first  of  July, 
1904,"  although  more  than  a  century  of  the  most  arbitrary,  ruth- 
less and  persistent  exercise  of  autocratic  power  to  force  the 
people  to  use  the  metric  system  had  resulted  only  in  involving 
1  ranee  and  the  rest  of  Continental  Europe  in  a  hopeless  chaos  of 
textile  standards. 

This  textile  witness  did  not  believe  that  the  "  try-it-on-the- 
Government-dog  "  policy  would  be  enough.  After  two  years  he 
would  have  both  Government  and  people  use  it,  and  as  it  has  been 
permissive  for  thirty-four  years  without  result,  his  plan  leads  in- 
evitably to  a  compulsory  law  with  penalties  attached,  like  the 
following  from  the  French  decree  of  1810: 

Violations  of  the  foregoing  provisions  shall  be  considered  breaches  of 
the  police  regulations  and  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  five  nor 
more  than  fifteen  francs  for  the  first  offence;  the  fine  may  be  increased  for 
a  repetition  of  the  offence. 

Imagine  the  cry  of  "  Police !  "  on  Leonard  Street,  New  York, 
because  some  one  had  been  "  caught  with  the  goods  on,"  a  skein 
of  yarn  measuring  840  yards.  It  might  help  to  reconcile  us  to 
such  a  law  if  the  culprit  was  one  who  had  petitioned  Congress 
for  the  metric  bill. 

The  witness  did  not  apprehend  any  difficulty  in  changing, 
although  the  autocrats  of  Europe,  from  Robespierre  to  Abdul 
Hamid,  the  present  Sultan  of  Turkey,  have  found  it  impossible. 

The  committee  next  learned  the  reason  for  this  confidence.  A 
German  in  his  employ  had  been  "  in  Germany  "  when  the  system 
was  made  compulsory  there  in  1871,  and  had  told  him  "  there  is 
no  real  difficulty  in  making  the  change."  That  employe  was 
certainly  31  years  younger  in  1871  than  in  1902,  in  all  probability 


144:  THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 

then  a  young  man  in  the  early  twenties.  Of  course  he  knew  all 
about  Germany  in  1871.  Twenty  weeks  after  this  testimony 
was  given  before  a  committee  of  the  American  Congress,  another 
cotton  and  woollen  manufacturer,  Kommerzienrat  Miinch-Ferber 
of  Hof,  Bavaria,  arose  before  a  committee  of  the  German 
Reichstag  and  denounced  the  attempt  to  introduce  the  metric 
system  into  the  German  textile  industry,  declaring  that  it  would 
throw  that  industry  into  "  ungodly  disorder "  (heillose  Ver- 
wirrung). 

The  Washington  witness  told  the  committee  how  "  gladly  he 
would  welcome  the  metric  system  in  his  own  work.77  Strange  to 
say,  110  one  asked  him  why  he  did  not  use  it  then,  seeing  that 
the  system  he  was  yearning  for  had  been  legally  permissive  in 
this  country  for  thirty-four  years.  Apparently  the  committee 
had  no  use  for  such  horse  sense.  Their  statesmanship  consisted 
in  "  trying  it  on  the  Government  dog.?? 

The  witness  then  gave  the  metric  system  a  sweeping  and  un- 
qualified personal  recommendation  for  the  mills  of  others  as 
well  as  for  his  own.  He  told  how  the  New  England  Cotton  Man- 
ufacturers7 Association  favored  the  report  of  the  Paris  Metric 
Congress  of  1900,  although  the  fact,  stated  by  the  secretary  of 
that  organization  and  as  easily  ascertained  on  February  6,  1902, 
as  on  January  7,  1903,  is  that  "  the  Association  never  committed 
itself  to  the  metric  system  of  measuring  yarn.7' 

The  witness  then  stated  he  manufactured  neither  woollen  nor 
cotton  goods  for  export,  and  did  not  know  what  was  used  in 
China,  but  with  genuine  metric  logic  assured  the  committee  that 
the  introduction  of  the  metric  system  "  would  certainly  77  be  of 
advantage  to  those  people  who  do  export. 

At  this  point  the  chairman  thanked  the  witness,  probably  for 
having  given  the  kind  of  an  opinion  the  committee  wanted,  and 
the  next  textile  witness  took  the  stand.  His  testimony  occupies 
about  668  lines  of  reading  matter,  of  which  107,  or  about  15 
per  cent.,  relate  more  or  less  remotely  to  the  metric  system  in 
the  textile  industry.  He  started  out  by  promising 

"  to  present  some  of  the  technical  details  in  which  the  use  of  units  is 
involved,  and  to  show  that  there  is  much  time  lost  in  the  various  compu- 
tations, owing  to  our  lack  of  system  in  denoting  the  constants  that  have 
to  be  used.  The  textile  industry  can  undoubtedly  furnish  one  of  the 
strongest  possible  statements  in  this  line,  as  strong  as,  and  possibly 
stronger  than  any  other  of  our  great  manufacturing  industries,  for  where 
once  goods  were  composed  entirely  of  one  kind  of  fibres  without  being 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  145 

mixed  with  others,  to-day  it  is  very  common  to  have  several  kinds  in  one 
fabric,  and  the  several  branches  of  manufacturing  are  therefore  interde- 
pendent, so  that  we  find  many  different  fibres  used  in  the  goods  that  are 
produced  within  the  limits  of  one  corporation." 

This  is  a  stock  metric  argument,  and  a  good  one  too.  The  only 
difficulty  is  that  it  can  be  used  with  equal  force  for  any  system 
of  weights  and  measures  or  yarn  numbering.  Substitute  Saxon, 
French,  Austrian,  Spanish,  English  or  what  not  for  the  word 
metric,  and  not  only  is  the  theoretic  logic  unimpaired,  but  its 
practical  force  is  generally  increased. 

The  United  States  now  has  four  systems  of  numbering  spun 
yarn.  The  desirability  of  having  but  one  is  unquestioned.  The 
disagreement  is  on  the  question  of  which  shall  be  the  one.  The 
French  plan  is  to  make  the  metric  system  the  one  by  adding  it 
to  the  four  we  now  have.  The  common-sense  plan  is  to  select 
the  best  one  of  the  four  we  have  and  discard  the  other  three. 
One  theory  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  four  and  one  are 
equal  to  one;  the  other,  that  four  less  three  are  equal  to 
one.  If  we  must  idly  dream  of  uniformity  let  it  be  the  uni- 
formity within  sight,  based  on  the  English  yard-pound  and  the 
840-yard  cotton  skein.  With  apologies  to  Lady  Macbeth  we  may 
say  to  the  metric  theorists: 

Yet  do  I  fear  thy  nature; 
It  is  too  full  of  the  milk  of  human  theory 
To  catch  the  nearest  way. 

Once  the  witness  and  questioner  reached  a  thin  place  in  the 
ice  and  by  a  quick  turn  saved  themselves  from  a  plunge  into  the 
icy  waters  of  fact: 

A  Member  of  the  Committee:  Your  statement  is  that  70  per  cent,  of  the 
(cotton)  spindles  in  the  world  are  not  using  the  metric  system. 

Witness:  Very  true,  but — 

Member  of  the  Committee:  Of  course  our  woollen  industry  is  of  large 
moment  in  this  country;  do  you  believe,  etc. 

The  witness  stated  that  the  metric  system  had  been  made  the 
"  standard "  for  his  school  and  emphasized  its  advantages  for 
textile  work.  He  promised  to  put  on  record  English  and  metric 
calculations,  the  former  covering  "  several  sheets  of  paper/'  the 
latter  requiring  "  but  very  few  figures."  These  had  been 
evolved  over  night  after  the  invitation  to  testify  before  the  com- 
mittee had  been  received.  Those  calculations  were  not  put  on 


146 


THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 


record.  Eight  months  later  the  witness  submitted  to  the  Amer- 
ican Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers  some  formulas  for  English 
and  metric  textile  calculations  to  prove  the  greater  simplicity  of 
the  latter.  Evidently  the  fabric  to  which  they  referred  was  spun 
from  such  stuff  as  dreams  are  made  of,  woven  on  the  loom  of 
imagination  and  designed  to  cover  the  nakedness  of  the  metric 
and  not  of  the  human  system.  The  width  in  the  loom  was  given 
in  units  of  4  inches  (decigrammes)  although  the  centigramme  (4-10 


FIG.  1. — LOWELL  TEXTILE  SCHOOL  AND  MILL  CALCULATIONS. 

of  an  inch)  is  too  long  for  expressing  woven  widths.  The  weight 
per  yard  was  extended  to  the  ten-thousandth  of  an  ounce,  requir- 
ing- over  ninety  miles  of  cloth  for  this  fraction  to  equal  one 
pound,  although  the  tenth  is  small  enough  for  practical  pur- 
poses. Nevertheless  these  formulas  worked  out  actually  show 
to  the  advantage  of  the  English  system.  At  Fig.  1  are  the  cal- 
culations by  the  two  methods  of  the  formulas  and  by  the  method 
of  the  mill : 

Lowell  metric  245  figures. 

Lowell  English  223  figures. 

Mill  English  160  figures. 

Besides  muddling  the  student's  ideas  regarding  mill  standards, 
the  "  introduction "  of  the  metric  system  into  that  school  has 
made  it  possible  with  245  figures  to  arrive  at  the  same  result 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  147 

that  is  reached  with  223  figures  by  the  elementary  English  for- 
mulas or  with  160  figures  by  mill  methods. 

This  witness  told  how  easy  it  would  be  to  "  disseminate  informa- 
tion "  about  the  metric  system  among  the  "  rank  and  file  of  the 
people  " : 

"  As  to  the  question  of  how  the  rank  and  file  of  the  people  adopt  the 
system  it  may  be  said,  so  far  as  the  textile  interests  are  concerned,  that 
many  of  our  large  manufacturing  centres  are  provided  with  textile  schools, 
and  these  schools  can  easily  disseminate  such  information  and  teach  the 
matter  in  such  a  way  that  there  will  not  be  any  difficulty  arising.  *  *  * 
Nor  are  the  night  textile  schools  the  only  agencies  to  teach  our  operatives 
the  use  of  the  system  directly,  for  there  are  night  schools  with  relation 
to  almost  any  form  of  study  and  in  nearly  every  community  in  the  country, 
so  that  we  shall  not  have  to  trust  to  our  operatives  to  pick  up  the  system, 
but  they  will  have  an  actual  opportunity  to  study  it.  Our  country  was 
never  so  well  supplied  with  schools  as  it  is  now." 

Here  then  is  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  during  the  "  trans- 
ition "  period.  Our  1,000,000  textile  operatives  are  to  attend 
night  schools — under  compulsion,  of  course. 

Another  new  theory  as  to  the  almighty  dollar  in  metrology 
was  announced  as  follows : 

"  Our  board  of  trustees  represents  the  control  of  about  sixty-five  millions 
of  capital,  and  having  placed  themselves  on  record  in  this  matter,  and 
with  the  resolutions  adopted  by  our  associations  of  manufacturers,  you 
must  see  that  there  is  some  weight  behind  all  this." 

The  metric  question  is  to  be  decided  by  capital.  This  theory 
eliminates  the  people  from  the  discussion  and  transfers  the  deci- 
sion to  millionaires. 

At  one  point  the  witness  allayed  the  wide-spread  alarm  as  to 
the  effect  of  the  metric  system  on  the  weather  and  on  the  weight 
of  our  summer  and  winter  clothes : 

"  After  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  does  it  mean  that  we  are 
going  to  have  cooler  weather  in  winter  or  warmer  weather  in  summer, 
so  that  we  must  wear  clothes  of  a  different  weight?  Is  it  not  altogether 
ridiculous  to  suppose  any  such  change,  and  if  our  clothes  are  to  be  of  the 
same  weight  after  as  before  making  the  change  of  our  unit,  will  not,  of 
course,  the  yarn  be  spun  to  the  same  counts,  and  will  not  there  then 
accordingly  be  only  the  change  of  the  name  of  the  size  of  the  yarn?  And 
is  not  a  rose  as  sweet  by  any  name?  " 

In  the  748  lines  of  testimony  whose  connection  with  the  metric 
system  it  is  clifficulf  to  trace,  these  two  witnesses  gave 


148  THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

opinions  and  information  on  a  variety  of  subjects,  including 
the  number  of  their  employes,  the  daily  consumption  of  wool  at 
their  mills,  the  relation  of  science  to  commerce,  the  importance 
of  the  ocean  cable,  the  radius  covered  by  the  telephone,  the 
Lowell  Textile  School,  their  intention  "  not  to  propagate  the  gen- 
eral cause  of  science,"  the  composition  of  the  school  board  of 
trustees,  their  consultation  with  the  Division  of  Botany  at  Wash- 
ington, the  ramie  fibre,  the  necessity  for  training  the  brains  as 
well  as  the  hands  of  workmen,  the  greater  chance  for  inventors  in 
early  times  than  at  present,  the  effect  of  labor-saving  machinery 
on  the  labor  supply  of  the  country,  the  courses  of  study  on  which 
a  man  may  "  build  a  superstructure  to  enable  him  to  meet  the 
world  as  a  textile  man/'  the  endowment  fund  and  equipment  of 
the  school,  testing  the  strength  of  materials,  the  amount  of  knots, 
wanes,  shakes,  etc.,  in  a  12  x  6  stick  of  timber,  the  comparative 
value  of  raw  cotton  and  cotton  cloth,  the  process  of  mercerizing 
cotton,  the  value  of  a  pound  of  Brussels  lace,  the  American  inva- 
sion of  Europe,  log-rolling  in  behalf  of  the  metric  bill,  the  shrink- 
age of  iron  castings  in  cooling,  the  distribution  of  textile  schools, 
'the  system  of  jigs  and  templates  in  modern  machine-shop  practice, 
what  England  will  do  if  the  United  States  "  falls  into  "  (the 
metric)  line,  the  weight  of  our  summer  and  winter  clothing 
"  after  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system/'  the  calibre  of  a  2-inch 
shafting  in  the  Lowell  district,  and  the  distillation  of  coal.  One 
of  the  witnesses  gave  an  objective  demonstration  that  a  straight 
'line  measures  the  shortest  distance  from  one  point  to  another, 
and  told  the  committee  how  many  sheep  his  grandfather  kept 
when  the  witness  was  a  boy. 

This  is  the  kind  of  evidence  that  was  followed  by  a  report 
bearing  all  the  earmarks  of  having  been  dictated  from  that 
metric  hothouse,  the  National  Bureau  of  Standards,  and  in  which 
the  committee  "  earnestly  recommended  "  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

Attention  has  been  called  to  the  testimony  of  these  two  wit- 
nesses to  show  what  rubbish  was  solemnly  accepted  at  Washing- 
ton by  the  representatives  of  the  people  on  February  6,  1902, 
when  considering  the  question  of  changing  the  established  stand- 
ards which  are  the  priceless  inheritance  of  80,000,000  of  people, 
who  at  the  present  rate  of  increase  will  number  200,000,000 
before  the  end  of  the  century.  Attention  is  called  to  it  now  that 
the  farce  may  not  be  repeated  when  another  metric  hearing  is 
given  by  a  Congressional  committee. 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE.  .          149 

In  the  free  discussion  following  the  report  of  the  coinage  com- 
mittee the  hollowness  of  the  metric  pretensions  was  thoroughly 
exposed.  This  led  the  American  Chamber  of  Commerce  at 
Paris  to  present  to  the  French  Society  of  Civil  Engineers  a  series 
of  questions  as  to  the  actual  state  of  weights  and  measures  in 
France.  With  touching  consideration  all  reference  to  the  textile 
industry  was  omitted.  The  French  engineers,  however,  annexed 
this  "  observation  "  on  French  textile  standards  to  their  replies : 

"  With  the  exception  of  linen  and  jute,  which,  by  reason  of  the  prepon- 
derance of  England  in  the  world's  markets,  are  still  put  up  in  bundles  of 
360,000  yards  and  variable  weights,  all  systems  of  reeling  yarn 'used  in 
France  are  based  on  the  metre  and  gramme  or  their  multiples  (kilo- 
gramme or  demi-kilogramme)." 


The  man  who  wrote  those  words  with  no  intention  to  mislead 
never  designed  a  textile  fabric,  never  wove  a  yard  of  cloth,  never 
spun  a  pound  of  yarn.  In  manufacturing  textiles  the  ratio  be- 
tween weight  and  length  or  area  takes  the  place  of  cubic  measure- 
ments. The  only  metric  or  decimal  ratio  is  that  obtained  from 
the  kilogramme  and  kilometre  skein.  All  other  systems  of  yarn 
numbering  are  metric  only  in  name  and  by  a  simple  calculation 
can  be  made  English,  Austrian,  Saxon  or  Dutch.  Look  at  the 
ten  indigenous  French  systems  of  numbering  spun  yarn.  Reduc- 
ing No.  1  yarn  by  each  system  to  its  metric  equivalent  we  have : 

No.  1  Metric  system  =  No.  1       metric. 

No.  1  French   '  =  No.  2 

No.  1  Roubaix  =  No.  1.43  " 

No.  1  Fourmies  =  No.     .71  " 

No.  1  Eeims  -  No.     .70  " 

No.  1  Eastern  France  =  No.  1.44  " 

No.  1  Sedan  =  No.  1.50  " 

No.  1  Elboeuf  (a)  =  No.  7.20  " 

No.  1  Elboeuf  (6)  =  No.  3.05  " 

No.  1  Elboeuf  (c)  =  No.  2.99  " 

All  based  by  conversion  on  the  metre  and  gramme  or  their  mul- 
tiples, if  you  will,  but  what  a  mess.  Apply  the  same  process  to 
the  four  Anglo-American  systems  of  yarn  numbering  and  what 
do  we  have  ? 


15U  THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

No.  1  Kun  1,600  yards  per  pound  =  No.  3.22  metric. 
No.  1  Cotton  840  yards  per  pound  =  No.  1.69  metric. 
No.  1  Worsted  560  yards  per  pound  =  No.  1.13  metric. 
No.  1  Linen  300  yards  per  pound  =  No.  .60  metric. 

These  metric  equivalents  are  "  based  on  the  metre  and  gramme 
or  their  equivalents,"  but  does  any  sane  textile  manufacturer 
want  them  ?  Americans  will  not  be  fooled  by  this  humbug  about 
basing  yarn  counts  on  the  "  metre  and  -gramme  or  their  equiv- 
alents." It  is  too  transparent.  Above  all,  it  is  unworthy  of 
a  society  bearing  the  high-sounding  title,  Societe  des  Ingenieurs 
Civils  de  France,  fondee  le  4=  Mars,  1848,  reconnue  d'utilite  pub- 
lique  par  decret  du  22  Decembre,  1860. 

The  greatest  of  metric  fallacies  is  the  idea  that  weights  and 
measures  can  be  changed  by  law.  The  metric  system  was 
founded  on  this  mistaken  idea,  and  the  chaos  on  the  Continent 
to-day  is  proof  that  the  thing  cannot  be  done.  A  recent  pamphlet 
by  M.  Edouard  Simon,  secretary  of  the  Paris  Metric  Congress 
of  1900,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Halsey's  paper,  explains  why  the 
struggle  for  a  century  to  make  the  French  standards  metric  has 
failed : 

"  In  our  country  (France)  two  principal  causes  have  prevented  up  to 
this  time  the  wished-for  unification  (of  yarn  numbering),  one  arising 
from  domestic,  the  other  from  foreign  commerce.  As  regards  wool,  which 
is  particularly  referred  to  by  Mr.  Halsey,  it  is  sufficient  to  remark  that 
the  business  of  spinning  mills  is,  in  many  cases,  still  localized.  Woollen 
yarn  intended  for  mills  of  Sedan  is  spun  in  Ardennes.  The  weavers  of 
Reims  obtain  their  supplies  of  yarn  from  the  surrounding  districts;  the 
weaving  mills  of  Elbeuf  and  Louviers  have  their  spinning  done  in  local 
mills.  These  conditions  have  contributed  to  the  maintenance  of  certain 
peculiar  usages.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  however,  that  the  skeins  are 
always  measured  in  metres  and  the  weight  expressed  in  kilogrammes  or 
demi -kilogrammes.  This  habit  or  routine,  if  you  prefer,  in  the  absence 
of  an  economic  or  industrial  evolution,  has  been  perpetuated. 

The  importation  of  English  fabrics  into  our  market  following  the  com- 
mercial treaties  of  1860,  the  trend  of  fashion  that  has  been  followed,  the 
low-priced  goods,  the  development  of  the  trade  in  ready-made  clothing, 
have  brought  about  a  complete  transformation  in  the  structure  of  fabrics. 
To  satisfy  a  rapidly  increasing  number  of  customers,  the  manufacturers 
have  endeavored,  by  combining  various  textile  fibres,  to  produce  attrac- 
tive fabrics  at  the  lowest  possible  cost.  Accordingly  a  weaver  formerly 
doing  business  in  a  very  small  district  has  been  compelled  to  use  a  varied 
assortment  of  yarns  from  different  districts.  The  inconvenience  con- 
nected with  the  different  methods  of  numbering  in  the  various  manu- 
facturing centres  has  thus  been  increased." 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE.  151 

The  influences  that  have  proved  more  powerful  than  legisla- 
tion in  France,  have  come  both  from  within  and  without  the 
country.  Compulsory  laws  in  France  and  everywhere  else  can 
be  enforced  only  so  far  as  violations  can  be  brought  under  the  eye 
of  the  police.  That  is  why  they  failed  in  the  French  textile  in- 
dustry in  spite  of  the  most  systematic  and  long-continued  effort 
ever  made  by  any  country  to  change  its  standards  of  weights  and 
measures.  To  compel  a  change  of  textile  standards  it  is  neces- 
sary to  control  the  thoughts  of  the  textile  workers,  and  that  is 
impossible.  Law  may  force  cloth  to  be  measured  and  ticketed  by 
the  metre  in  public  markets,  but  it  cannot  make  the  manufacturers 
think  in  metres.  The  fallacy  that  it  can  is  still  strong  in  France, 
but  a  century  of  failure  has  had  its  effects,  as  shown  by  the  follow- 
ing extracts  from  the  discussion  at  the  Paris  Metric  Congress  of 
1900,  of  the  proposal  to  enforce  the  penal  law  of  1810  (p.  87  and 
90): 

A  Member:   Coercion  has  had  no  more  effect  than  has  persuasion. 
Discussing  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved:  That  the  law  of  1810  be  enforced  throughout  France: 
M.  Isaac:   I  ask  the  suppression  of  that  resolution. 

M.  Cousin:  It  seems  to  me  useless  to  stir  up  the  Government  to  take  up 
arms. 

M.  Isaac:  Granted.    It  is  necessary  to  maintain  silence  as  to  this  article. 

And  silence  was  maintained. 

Yet  in  the  face  of  such  evidence  as  this,  men  can  be  found  to 
advocate  coercion  in  America. 

Never  was  a  more  complete  exposure  of  the  metric  fallacy 
made  than  by  M.  Paul  Lamoitier,  a  French  textile  manufacturer. 
Exasperated  by  having  quotations  from  his  technical  works  pub- 
lished in  America  to  show  how  little  the  French  use  the  metric 
system  in  the  textile  industry,  he  began  last  October  (1902)  in 
^Industrie  Textile,  Paris,  a  series  of  articles  calling  for  more 
coercion  and  heaping  reproaches  upon  his  countrymen  for  their 
neglect  of  le  systeme  universel,  a  neglect  which  he  mercilessly 
exposed.  While  these  articles  were  appearing  in  France  he  wrote 
several  letters  for  publication  in  America  to  persuade  Americans 
to  adopt  the  metric  system.  The  following  extracts  are  from 
these  various  articles,  some  written  for  French,  others  for 
American  consumption: 


152 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 


LAMOITIER 


To  Americans. 


Mon  Dieu!  that  you  (Amer- 
icans) should  remain  stubborn 
and  not  adopt  it  (the  metric  sys- 
tem), is  for  the  above  named  na- 
tions and  for  France  but  a  second- 
ary consideration.  The  metric 
system  wins  its  own  way  because 
it  is  the  most  simple,  the  most 
logical,  practical,  uniform  and  uni- 
versal. 


To  frenchmen. 


Ah!  these  Americans  are  not 
considerate  of  our  feelings,  and 
they  are  right.  We  are  as  much  in 
the  anarchy  of  weights  and  meas- 
ures for  the  textile  industry  as  at 
the  time  of  the  Revolution,  for  we 
have  the  denier  of  Montpellier  and 
of  Milan  for  silk,  with  the  aune  as 
a  unit  of  length. 


Then  why  do  you  use  the  deci- 
mal system  for  your  calculations? 

You  are  not  logical  in  your 
reasoning. 


This  article,  however,  is  not 
written  for  Americans.  Neverthe- 
less, they  are  perfectly  right  in 
speaking  of  our  "  European  chaos  " 
of  yarn  numbering  and  I  will  at- 
tach their  argument  to  my  re- 
marks, not  for  the  purpose  of 
going  backward  like  them,  who 
would  return  to  the  ancient  aune 
and  the  greater  chaos  of  ancient 
and  absurd  measures. 


"It  (a  new  law)  would  put  a 
stop  to  the  chaos  which  the  Amer- 
icans ridicule.  *  *  *  In  short 
(this  for  the  Chauvinists,  and  con- 
sequently for  all  of  us),  they  would 
not  ridicule  us  any  more.  It  is  not 
pleasant  to  be  thus  continually  rid- 
iculed by  foreigners,  especially 
when  they  have  reason  for  doing 
so." 


After  having  established  the 
metric  system,  is  it  not  truly  ridic- 
ulous that  more  than  110  years 
later  we  should  be  still  using  the 
English  yard,  the  old  or  French 
pound,  the  denier  of  Montpellier 
or  of  Milan,  the  ancient  aune,  the 
many  different  skeins,  etc.? 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 


153 


My  idea,  Monsieur,  regarding  a 
Congress  of  Yarn  Numbering  at  St. 
Louis,  far  from  being  a  farce,  can 
be  of  no  interest  to  us  because  it 
(unification  of  yarn  numbering) 
is  an  accomplished  fact. 


And  this  is  the  reason  why  they 
are  right  in  mocking  us  when  they 
say  we  do  not  use  the  metric  sys- 
tem for  numbering  yarn  and  for 
weaving  calculations.  Nothing  is 
more  arbitrary  than  to  reckon  the 
yarn  by  the  thousand  metres  and 
the  width  of  the  cloth  and  the 
picks  of  the  filling  by  the  inch.  It 
is  nonsense  and  a  derision.  Note 
also  that  while  I  speak  here  only 
of  France,  I  could  say  as  much  of 
all  Europe. 


In  conclusion,  here  is  the  advice 
of  a  friend  of  your  great  country 
(America) : 

The  calculations  based  on  the 
metric  system  are  the  most  simple, 
the  most  practical,  the  most  exact, 
the  most  uniform  for  all  textile 
materials.  It  will  be  a  boon  to 
your  great  nation  when  that  sys- 
tem shall  be  used  exclusively  in 
your  country. 


In  the  face  of  foreign  sarcasm 
it  (the  metric  system)  should  be 
established  at  the  earliest  possible 
moment. 


We  have  here  a  pristine  confu- 
sion, which  will  spread  throughout 
the  world,  and  increase  in  propor- 
tion to  the  establishment  of  the 
metric  system. 


Ah!  the  famous  aune,  do  you 
know  its  equivalent?  Exactly  3  ft., 
7  in.,  10  lines  and  10  points,  or  in 
other  words,  1.188447  metres;  the 
foot  being  equal  to  .324839  metres, 
and  divided  into  12  inches,  the  inch 
into  12  lines  and  the  liner,  into  12 
points. 

You  would  not  imagine  this  as 
you  are  in  the  habit  of  calling  it 
1.19  metres. 

You  laugh! 

It  is,  however,  no  laughing  mat- 
ter unless  you  consider  it,  as  I  do, 
profoundly  ridiculous. 


154 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 


In  England  the  opposition  arises 
principally  from  an  opinion  that 
their  commerce  in  textiles  would 
suffer  by  the  change.  This  is  an 
error.  In  the  first  place,  to  allow 
competition  in  the  markets  noth- 
ing would  prevent  the  competing 
nations  from  using  occasionally 
the  English  standards. 


As  for  the  recalcitrants  (Eng- 
lish, Americans  and  others)  a 
very  simple  procedure  will  be  to 
oblige  them  in  all  countries  where 
the  metric  system  is  legal,  to  mark 
their  yarns  by  the  metric  system. 

Let  us  say  to  them :  "  Do  you 
want  to  trade  with  us?  Then  con- 
fine yourselves  to  that  which  is 
the  most  simple  and  the  most  prac- 
tical. *  *  *  There  is  no  better 
way  than  this  to  make  them  re- 
pentant." 


I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you 
that  what  I  have  insisted  on  is  an 
accomplished  fact.  The  per- 
manent committee  of  the  Congress 
of  1900  has  declared  that  the 
count  of  silk  will  indicate  the 
number  of  kilometres  per  kilo- 
gramme (fixed  weight). 

Glory,  monsieur,  to  the  permanent 
committee  of  the  Congress  of  1900, 
who  have  attained  so  quickly  this 
marvellous  result!  (1903.) 


Numbering  by  the  kilogramme 
(fixed  weight)  can  be  used  but 
little  in  practice  for  silk  because 
of  its  fineness  and  the  method  of 
spinning.  The  Brussels  Congress 
decided  to  retain  the  old  method 
of  numbering  silk,  based  on  a 
fixed  length.  Thus  we  obtain  a 
very  simple  and  practical  system, 
suited  for  all  calculations.  (1900.) 


The  metric  fallacy  exposes  itself. 

The  mass  of  error,  half  truths  and  deception  might  be  extended 
indefinitely,  but  the  mind  revolts  from  such  an  outrage  on  com- 
mon sense  and  longs  for,  demands,  the  truth.  What  is  the  truth 
about  the  metric  system  in  the  textile  industry?  I  will  try  to 
answer  that  question  in  the  following  chapters. 


TEXTILE  WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES. 

How  use  doth  breed  a  habit  in  a  man. — Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona. 

As  food,  clothing  and  shelter  are  the  three  primary  necessities 
for  the  existence  of  man  throughout  the  greater  portion  of  the 
earth's  surface,  so  the  textile  industry,  which  supplies  clothing, 
takes  its  place  among  the  most  important  and  extensive  of  human 
occupations.  Wherever  man  exists  the  manufacture  of  fabrics 
is  found  in  some  form.  The  oldest  records  of  human  history 
contain  references  to  spinning  and  weaving.  The  higher  the 
development  of  civilization  the  more  complicated,  varied,  accu- 
rate and  extensive  do  textile  processes  and  products  become. 
This  industry,  which  is  found  in  its  highest  development  in 
Europe  and  the  United  States,  gives  employment  to  millions  of 
men,  women  and  children  and  the  value  of  its  annual  products 
reaches  fabulous  amounts. 

Three  years  ago  the  textile  industry  in  the  United  States  with 
its  1,000,000  operatives  led  all  others  in  the  number  of  employes. 
This  vast  army  of  workers  was  employed  in  many  different  mills, 
widely  scattered  throughout  the  country,  every  State  claiming  a 
share. 

Anything  affecting  the  standard  of  weights  and  measures  affects 
the  whole  textile  industry,  root  and  branch.  The  ideas  of  every 
textile  worker  concerning  every  operation  of  manufacturing  are 
associated  intimately  with  the  standards  of  and  ratios  between 
weight,  length  and  area,  upon  the  proper  adjustment  of  which  the 
success  of  every  process  depends.  When,  therefore,  the  proposition 
is  made  to  change  the  standards  of  weights  and  measures  it  be- 
comes necessary  to  consider  the  interests  of  the  vast  textile  organ- 
ization, upon  which  all  other  industries,  in  fact,  the  very  exist- 
ence of  man  depend.  If  it  is  possible  to  demonstrate  the  advan- 
tage and  possibility  of  making  a  change  in  weights  and  measures 
in  the  textile  industry,  the  final  decision  should,  nevertheless, 
depend  upon  how  far  such  change  was  possible  and  profitable  to 
all  other  occupations.  It  is  a  question  of  possibility  and  ad- 
vantage to  the  greatest  number.  If  the  metric  system  offers 


156  THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 

many  disadvantages  and  no  compensating  advantages  for  textile 
manufacturing  and  the  change  to  it  in  this  great  industry  is 
likely  to  prove  impossible,  the  proposition  to  make  the  change 
general  is  manifestly  untenable.  With  the  possible  exception  of 
a  few  minor  and  distinct  trades  all  the  industries  of  the  country 
must  stand  or  fall  together  on  the  question  of  weights  and  meas- 
ures. Leaving  the  problem  in  its  broad  aspects  to  be  considered 
by  others,  I  will  confine  my  attention  to  its  bearings  on  the  manu- 
facture of  textile  products. 

In  textile  manufacturing  measurements  are  employed  for 
weight,  distance  and  area  only,  and  those  for  distance  are  in  turn 
limited  by  reason  of  the  elimination  of  all  measurements  of  thick- 
ness. The  volume  and  thickness  of  textile  materials,  finished  and 
in  process  of  manufacturing,  are  indicated  by  the  ratio  between 
weight  and  length.  The  bulk  of  cloth,  for  example,  is  expressed, 
not  in  cubic  inches,  but  in  either  the  weight  per  yard  of  a  givej. 
width  or  in  the  number  of  yards  per  pound. 

Likewise  the  size  of  yarn  is  expressed,  not  by  the  diameter  or 
volume  of  the  thread,  but  either  by  the  length  of  a  given  weight 
or  the  weight  of  a  given  length.  If  cotton  or  other  loose  fibre  is 
spun  to  such  a  size  that  one  pound  of  yarn  measures  840  yards 
(about  one-half  mile)  the  count  or  ratio  between  weight  and 
length  is  No.  1.  If  the  yarn  is  spun  so  that  one  pound  measures 
twice  that  length,  or  1,680  yards  (about  one  mile),  the  count  is 
No.  2.  This  840  yards  per  pound  is  the  English  standard  for 
numbering  cotton  yarn,  by  which  the  count  indicates  the  number 
of  840-yard  lengths  in  one  pound.  The  fixed  weight  system  of 
numbering  yarn  is  used  almost  exclusively  throughout  the  world 
for  yarn  spun  from  loose  fibres  like  wool  or  cotton.  These 
materials  are  received  by  the  spinner  in  the  form  of  a  tangled 
mass  that  is  first  converted  into  a  coarse  sliver  or  rope,  which 
each  successive  process,  up  to  and  including  spinning,  makes  finer. 
The  process  may  be  likened  to  the  stretching  of  rubber;  the 
farther  a  pound  is  stretched  the  smaller  or  finer  becomes  the 
strand,  and  the  higher  is  the  count  or  number  that  indicates  the 
length  of  a  pound. 

By  the  second  method  of  numbering  yarn  the  count  or  ratio 
indicates  the  weight  of  a  fixed  length.  Thus  if  16,000  yards  of 
silk  weigh  one  ounce,  the  count  or  ratio  between  weight  and 
length  is  No.  1.  If  two  of  these  strands,  each  16,000  yards  long 
are  placed  side  by  side,  the  2-ply  thread  will  measure  16,000 


THE   METRIC   FAILURE.  157 

yards  and  weigh  two  ounces,  and  the  count  or  ratio  between 
weight  and  length  will  be  No.  2.  This  is  the  English  standard 
for  numbering  thrown  silk,  by  which  the  count  indicates  the 
weight  in  ounces  of  16,000  yards. 

The  silkworm  spins  the  silk  filament  to  an  extreme  fineness,  a 
single  filament  sometimes  measuring  1,100  miles  per  pound.  In 
this  form  it  is  too  fine  and  delicate  to  be  woven.  The  first  process, 
therefore,  is  to  double  and  twist  a  number  of  the  cocoon  filaments 
together  by  a  process  called  reeling,  which  is  carried  on  where 
the  silk  is  raised.  This  reeled  silk  is  the  "  raw  silk  "  of  com- 
merce and  the  raw  material  of  our  silk  mills.  It  is  still  too 
fine  for  weaving  and  passes  through  several  processes  of  doubling 
and  twisting,  which  convert  it  into  what  is  called  "  thrown  silk," 
each  operation  increasing  the  size  and  weight  of  the  yarn  and, 
consequently,  the  number  or  count. 

The  length  of  the  silk  filament  as  spun  by  the  worm  remains 
unchanged  throughout  all  the  subsequent  processes  of  manu- 
facturing. A  coarser  thread  is  obtained  by  twisting  two  or  more 
threads  together.  In  this  way  the  weight  is  increased  and  the 
count  indicating  the  weight  of  a  fixed  length  increases  in  the  same 
proportion.  On  the  other  hand,  the  length  of  the  sliver  made 
from  loose  fibres  for  spun  yarn  increases  with  each  process  and 
the  count  indicating  the  length  of  a  fixed  weight  increases  in  the 
same  proportion.  Thus  by  using  the  fixed  weight  system  of 
numbering  in  the  manufacture  of  yarn  from  fibres,  and  the  fixed 
length  system  in  the  manufacture  of  yarn  reeled  from  filaments, 
the  count  in  each  case  becomes  higher  as  the  process  of  manu- 
facture advances.  From  this  it  is  easily  seen  why  "  spun 
silk  "  yarn  which  is  made  from  the  tangled  mass  of  waste  silk  is 
numbered  by  the  fixed  weight  and  not  by  the  fixed  length  system. 

In  manufacturing  yarn  from  loose  fibres  the  raw  material  is 
first  put  into  the  form  of  a  coarse  sliver  about  as  large  as  a  man's 
wrist.  Succeeding  processes  double  and  draw  this  sliver  finer 
until  it  is  about  the  size  of  a  lead  pencil,  in  which  form  it  is  called 
roving.  The  final  process  of  spinning  draws  it  still  finer  and 
twists  it  into  yarn.  During  these  successive  stages  it  is  fre- 
quently necessary  for  the  workmen  to  test  the  size  of  roving, 
slubbing  or  yarn.  In  making  these  tests  it  is  plainly  impossible 
to  weigh  a  given  quantity  and  then  measure  it.  To  obtain  an 
ounce,  or  other  weight,  it  would  be  necessary  to  estimate  roughly 
that  amount  and  then  take  away  or  add  piece  by  piece  until 


158  THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

the  scales  were  balanced,  leaving  the  yarn  in  such  a  broken 
and  tangled  mass  that  it  could  not  be  measured.  These 
mill  tests,  therefore,  are  invariably  made  by  first  measuring  a 
given  length  and  then  weighing  it  to  determine  the  ratio  between 
length  and  weight.  By  this  method  the  length  is  fixed,  the 
weight  variable.  The  number  by  the  regular  fixed  weight 
system,  if  wanted,  is  found  by  calculation  or  by  reference  to  a 
conversion  table.  Automatic  scales  indicating  the  fixed  weight 
number  are  often  used.  For  many  processes  of  manufacturing 
no  conversion  is  required  as  the  weight  can  be  regulated  as  well 
by  the  fixed  length  as  by  the  fixed  weight  system.  For  heavy 
sliver  the  fixed  length  system  is  practically  a  necessity.  Any 
convenient  length  is  chosen,  from  one  yard  upward.  Thus  the 
Revue  Technologique,  Paris,  January  10,  1903,  states  French 
practice  in  the  cotton  industry : 

The  numbers  for  all  spinning  machines  (mules)  are  based  on  this 
length  of  1,000  metres,  but  as  it  would  be  too  expensive  and  consume  too 
much  time  to  use  so  great  a  length  of  sliver  or  roving,  the  following 
lengths  have  been  adopted  nearly  everywhere  for  the  preparatory  machines 
(in  France) : 

Lappers , 1  or  2  metres 

Cards     5  metres 

Draw-frames   5  metres 

Slubbing  frames  25  metres 

Intermediate  50  metres 

Finishers 100  metres 

Mules  and  ring  frames  » 1000  metres 

It  is  necessary  to  calculate  the  number  of  the  yarn  from  the  weight  of 
these  lengths. 

Again,  in  French  worsted  processes  the  tests  are  made  by 
comparing  the  weight  of  an  arbitrary  length  of  sliver  or  roving 
with  the  standard.  Following  are  the  standards  for  the  various 
processes  as  given  by  a  French  writer  in  a  treatise  on  French 
spinning : 

Weight  of  one  metre  of  sliver  or  roving: 

Cards    7  to  10  grammes 

Draw-frames   9  to  1     gramme 

Roving  frames    1  to  •&  gramme 

The  same  method  is  employed  with  the  English  system.  A 
length  of  12,  20,  50,  80  or  120  yards  is  frequently  used  as  being 
a  convenient  fraction  of  the  hank  of  840,  560  or  1,600  yards, 


THE   METUIC    FAILURE.  159 

facilitating  conversion  -to  the  fixed  weight  standard  when  desired. 
In  the  manufacture  of  knit  goods,  the  calculation  of  the  weight  of 
the  knitted  fabric  cannot  be  made  from  the  yarn  counts  as  is  pos- 
sible and  necessary  in  the  manufacture  of  woven  fabrics.  The 
weight  of  the  knitted  fabric  is  regulated  by  experiment  and  ob- 
serving what  weight  of  goods  is  obtained  with  a  certain  weight 
of  yarn,  gauge  of  frame,  tension,  and  other  adjustments,  ^"o 
calculations  based  on  the  yarn  count  being  necessary,  the  size 
of  yarn  spun  and  knitted  in  the  same  mill  is  often  regulated  by 
fixed  length  tests,  as  in  the  case  of  sliver  and  roving.  Instead  of 
measuring  so  many  yards,  the  practice  in  our  leading  knitting 
centres  is  to  save  time  by  weighing  a  certain  number  of  ends  from 
one  "  draw  "  of  the  mule,  a  "  draw  "  being  slightly  more  than 
2  yards.  The  number  of  draws  varies  in  different  places.  In 
Cohoes,  3  draws  or  6  j:  yards  are  used ;  in  Amsterdam,  6  draws  or 
12|  yards;  and  in  Little  Falls,  12  draws  or  25  yards. 

In  Spain  the  weight  in  quarter  ounces  (Spanish)  per  400  canes 
is  used  and  an  indefinite  number  of  variations  may  be  found 
throughout  the  textile  world  irrespective  of  the  system  of  weights 
and  measures  employed.  They  are  necessary  operations  for  testing 
the  size  of  the  yarn  by  reeling  and  weighing,  and  are  not  classed 
as  systems  of  numbering  spun  yarn.  Following  is  a  list  of  these 
methods  compiled  from  recent  authorities : 

Country.  Unit  of  Weiffht.  Length. 

Spain  quarter  unga  400  canes 

France  gramme  1,  2,  5,  25,  50,  100,  250  metres 

Scotland  pound  14,400  yards 

England  dram  80  yards 

Germany  gramme  420  or  840  yards  (English) 

Germany  gramme  10,  20,  50,  100,  200,  300,  400,  500,  or  1,000  metres 

America  grain  1,  5,  10,  12,  20,  50,  SO,  or  120  yards. 

When  the  yarn  is  woven  into  cloth  the  bulk  of  the  fabric  is 
indicated  by  the  weight  of  an  area  of  fixed  dimensions,  usually  a 
length  of  one  yard  and  a  width  expressed  in  inches.  Silk  is  an 
exception  to  this  rule.  Owing  to  the  practice  of  loading  silk  with 
foreign  substances  the  weight  of  the  finished  silk  fabric  is  a 
matter  of  indifference  to  the  buyer,  who  relies  upon  the  "  handle" 
and  appearance  alone  in  judging  the  value  of  the  goods. 

The  English  yard-pound  is  at  present  the  single  standard  of 
numbering  spun  yarn  throughout  all  English-speaking  countries, 
including  the  British  colonies,  China  and  Japan.  All  English 


160  THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

fixed  weight  systems  of  yarn  numbering  are  based  on  the  number 
of  skeins  or  hanks  in  one  pound.  Hanks  of  different  lengths 
are  used  for  the  different  materials : 

Woollen,  1,600  yards. 

Cotton,  840  yards. 

Worsted,  560  yards. 

Linen,  300  yards. 

The  hank  used  for  carded  woollen  yarn  varies  in  England,  but 
in  the  United  States  a  hank  or  run  of  1,600  yards  is  the  principal 
system,  the  only  important  exception  being  found  in  Philadelphia 
and  vicinity  where  the  300  yard  hank  or  linen  cut  is  used. 
These  systems  are  by  no  means  confined  to  English-speaking 
countries.  The  300  yard  system  is,  with  the  exception  of  a  local 
and  unimportant  Austrian  standard,  the  world's  single  standard 
for  linen,  jute,  hemp  and  allied  fibres,  so  that  if  a  spinner  in  any 
of  these  materials  in  the  United  States  should  mention,  say,  !N"o. 
20  linen  yarn  to  a  spinner  in  Great  Britain,  France,  Germany, 
Austria,  Eussia,  India,  China  or  Japan,  in  fact,  in  any  country  in 
the  world,  both  would  understand  without  further  explanation 
that  the  yarn  measured  6,000  yards  per  pound. 

These  four  systems  were  brought  to  America  from  England 
where  they  originated  and  are  still  in  use.  All  are  based  on  the 
English  yard-pound  so  that  the  only  variation  in  the  English 
system  of  yarn  numbering  consists  in  the  lengths  of  the  hanks. 

Of  all  the  leading  branches  of  textile  manufacturing  the  linen, 
hemp  and  jute  industries  are  the  most  distinct.  These  materials 
are  seldom  mixed  or  combined  in  the  same  fabric  with  either 
cotton,  woollen,  worsted  or  silk  yarn.  Its  world- wide  standard  of 
oOO  yards  seldom  comes  in  contact  with  the  remaining  systems. 
The  840  yard  skein  is  the  standard  for  cotton  yarn  throughout  the 
world.  The  only  exception  is  found  in  France  where  a  French 
system  that  is  not  metric  is  used  for  cotton  yarn.  The  560  yard 
skein  is  the  single  standard  for  worsted  yarn  throughout  the 
British  Empire  and  the  United  States.  It  is  also  one  of  the  lead- 
ing standards  for  worsted  yarn  in  Continental  Europe. 

The  modern  silk  industry  was  first  established  in  France  and 
Italy,  and  their  various  systems  of  numbering  silk  yarn  were  adopted 
and  became  so  firmly  rooted  long  before  the  birth  of  the  metric 
system  that  they  have  resisted  all  attempts  to  change  them  and 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  161 

are  to-day  the  world's  standards  for  what  is  known  as  raw  silk. 
These  systems  of  numbering  were  based  upon  the  weight  in 
cleniers  of  9,600  aunes  of  silk,  the  denier  being  a  coin  weighing 
24  Paris  grains.  In  testing  the  weight  of  silk  l-24th  of  9,600, 
or  400  aunes,  was  used,  and  the  weight  of  this  shorter  length  in 
grains  also  indicated  the  weight  of  the  longer  length  in  deniers. 
Slight  variations  in  the  weight  of  the  grain  have  caused  varia- 
tions which  are  practically  negligible.  Thus,  in  Continental 
Europe  the  length  of  400  aunes  is  reduced  to  its  equivalent,  476 
metres,  and  the  denier  to  .0531  gramme.  To  improve  these  awk- 
ward expressions  a  fixed  length  of  450  metres  and  a  weight  of 
.05  gramme  have  been  substituted.  As  very  little  raw  silk  is  pro- 
duced in  Great  Britain  or  the  United  States  the  English  and 
American  silk  manufacturers  receive  their  supplies  of  raw 
material  from  abroad  numbered  by  the  denier-aune  standard. 
Instead  of  converting  the  denier-aune  count  into  an  exact  but 
awkward  equivalent  as  has  been  done  in  Continental  Europe,  a 
distinct  system,  based  on  a  fixed  length  of  1,000  yards  and  its 
weight  in  drams,  has  been  adopted  in  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States  as  the  exclusive  standard  for  numbering  thrown 
silk.  It  is  called  the  Manchester  system,  probably  from  its  hav- 
ing originated  in  Manchester,  England.  Not  only  is  it  the  only 
standard  in  use  in  English-speaking  countries,  but  it  is  used  to  a 
considerable  extent  in  the  machine  lace  industry  of  Calais, 
Erance. 

Paris  Metric  Congress,  page  33: 

M.  Persoz.    The  English  dram  system  is  also  used  in  the  Calais  district 
in  the  machine  lace  industry. 

In  addition  to  yarn  numbering  there  are  in  the  textile  industry 
measurements  of  the  width,  length  and  weight  of  the  woven 
cloth.  The  width  is  expressed  in  inches;  the  length  in  yards; 
and  the  weight  either  in  ounces  per  yard  or  yards  per  pound. 

Such  is  the  present  condition  of  our  textile  weights  and  meas- 
ures. The  metric  proposition  means  that  our  fundamental  stand- 
ards, the  yard,  inch,  pound,  ounce,  grain  and  dram  shall  be 
abolished  and  their  places  taken  by  the  metre,  decimetre,  centi- 
metre, millimetre,  gramme,  decigramme,  centigramme  and  milli- 
gramme. It  also  means  that  for  all  materials,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  silk,  a  skein  of  1,000  metres  and  a  weight  of  1  kilo- 
gramme shall  be  the  bases  of  numbering  yarn.  In  other  words,  if 


162  THE   METRIC    FAILURE.     • 

1  kilogramme  of  yarn  measures  1,000  metres,  the  number  is  1 ;  if 
2,000  metres,  it  is  No.  2  ;  if  3,000  metres,  it  is  No.  3,  etc.,  the  num- 
ber indicating  the  number  of  thousand  metres  per  kilogramme.  I 
say  with  the  possible  exception  of  silk,  because  the  advocates  of 
the  metric  system  have  not  been  able  to  agree  among  themselves 
as  'to  how  silk  yarn  shall  be  numbered  by  the  metric  system. 

This,  in  brief,  is  what  we  are  asked  to  abandon  and  what  to 
accept.  Let  us  first  consider  what  sort  of  a  task  it  is  to  change 
established  weights  and  measures.  From  the  growing  of  the 
fibre  until  it  appears  in  the  form  of  cloth  ready  for  clothing,  the 
ideas  of  every  one  of  our  textile  workers,  in  every  process  of 
this  complicated  industry,  are  bound  inseparably  to  the  standards 
of  weights  and  measures,  the  pound,  ounce,  dram,  grain,  yard 
and  inch.  It  is  of  vital  importance  in  the  consideration  of  the 
metric  question  that  a  correct  idea  be  formed  of  the  nature  and 
extent  of  this  connection  between  textile  standards  and  the  tech- 
nical knowledge  and  experience  of  textile  workers. 

The  thickness  and  volume  of  the  material  in  process  are  ex- 
pressed by  the  ratio  between  the  weight  and  the  length  of  the 
sliver,  roving  or  yarn.  To  the  textile  operative  this  count  indi- 
cates not  only  the  length,  diameter,  volume  and  weight  of  the 
material,  but  also  the  proportion  between  them.  The  yarn  count 
is  thus  the  keystone  of  the  arch  of  textile  weights  and  measures. 
It  is  the  guide  for  all  operations  and  the  expression  not  only  of 
length,  diameter,  volume,  weight  and  their  complex  relations,  but 
also  a  means  of  expressing  the  quality  and  length  of  fibres. 

The  count  of  worsted  yarn,  for  example,  indicating  the  number 
of  560-yard  skeins  per  pound,  has  become  a  means  of  indicating 
the  quality  of  worsted  wool.  Worsted  wool  is  called  40's  if 
it  can  be  spun  to  40  x  560  or  22,400  yards  per  pound ;  60's,  if  it 
can  be  spun  to  60  x  560  or  33,600  yards  per  pound;  80's  if  it  can 
be  spun  to  80  x  560  or  44,800  yards  per  pound.  This  method 
of  designating  the  quality  of  worsted  wool  is  an  established  cus- 
tom throughout  the  commercial  and  manufacturing  world,  and 
when  the  wool  dealer  of  Hamburg,  Germany,  or  the  worsted 
spinner  of  Bradford,  England,  or  the  worsted  manufacturers  of 
Lawrence,  Mass.,  designate  worsted  top  by  a  number  it  is  based 
upon  the  English  yard-pound.  The  sign  "  607s  "  does  not  mean 
a  number  or  yarn  of  a  certain  size  to  the  wool  grower,  dealer> 
buyer  or  sorter;  to  them  it  means  wool  of  a  certain  fineness, 
length  of  staple,  curl  and  strength.  To  the  carder,  spinner  and 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  163 

practical  manufacturer  it  means  all  this  and  something  more. 
It  means  a  yarn  of  a  certain  size,  uniformity  and  strength,  meas- 
uring 33,600  yards  per  pound,  and  cloth  of  a  certain  texture  and 
quality.  In  conversation  the  term  60's  means  the  quality  of  wool 
to  one  man,  the  size  of  yarn  to  another,  yet  both  ideas  are  in  har- 
mony. To  change  this  system  of  numbering  changes  the  lan- 
guage of  textile  workers  as  well  as  the  mere  expression  of  the 
ratio  between  the  length  and  the  weight  of  one  pound  of  yarn. 

As  the  process  of  manufacture  advances,  measurements  be- 
come a  still  more  frequent  and  important  factor  in  the  mill. 
The  wool  carder's  ideas  of  the  innumerable  qualities  and  mixtures 
of  stock,  the  adjustment  and  operation  of  the  delicate  carding 
machinery  all  centre  on  the  yarn  number,  indicating  a  certain 
number  of  yards  per  pound.  To  change  the  size  of  the  yard  and 
pound  would  also  throw  his  ideas  of  size  and  spinning  qualities 
into  hopeless  disorder. 

The  spinner  and  weaver  likewise  gauge  their  work  by  the  yard, 
inch  and  pound.  The  yarn  count  to  them  means  a  certain 
length  per  pound;  the  twist  is  measured  by  the  turns  per  inch, 
and  the  expressions  6,  8,  10,  18,  24,  or  40  turns  expresses  not  only 
so  many  turns  per  inch,  but  certain  degrees  of  hardness  in  yarn, 
ideas  that  are  inseparably  connected  with  certain  effects  in  woven 
and  finished  fabrics.  The  yarn  count,  or  length  per  pound, 
means  a  certain  appearance  of  the  yarn,  a  certain  strength  and 
elasticity;  it  tells  what  production  should  come  from  each  ma- 
chine, and  how  much  should  be  paid  for  spinning  100  pounds  or 
hanks.  It  is  the  standard  of  the  experience  in  the  past,  the  work 
of  the  present  and  the  possibilities  for  the  future. 

The  weaver  works  in  a  maze  of  measurements  that  include  yarn 
numbers  or  yards  per  pound,  threads  of  warp  per  inch,  dents  of 
the  reed  per  inch,  width  in  inches,  length  in  yards,  picks  of  filling 
per  inch. 

These  measurements  are  vital  factors  in  the  structure  of  the 
fabric.  They  are  constantly  changing  to  meet  the  demands  of 
fashion  in  the  multifarious  fabrics  from  gauze  dress  goods  to 
frieze  overcoating  cloth,  including  an  endless  variety  of  fabrics 
too  numerous  to  be  mentioned  here.  Each  of  these  fabrics  is 
subject  to  innumerable  variations  in  which  correct  measurements 
are  essential. 

The  vast  army  of  hard-working  men,  women  and  children  en- 
gaged in  our  textile  mills,  most  of  them  with  but  an  elementary 


164  THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 

education,  highly  organized  to  work  together  with  the  precision 
of  machinery  in  the  conversion  of  fibres  and  filaments  into 
fabrics,  have  become  familiar  with  the  established  weights  and 
measures  in  the  hard  school  of  experience.  Their  ideas  of  the 
yard,  inch,  pound,  ounce,  dram  and  grain  as  textile  standards 
have  been  acquired  while  toiling  long  hours,  day  in  and  day  out, 
for  years  in  noisy,  nerve-racking  mills.  In  such  a  matter  as 
changing  of  standards  of  weights  and  measures,  each  and  every 
one  is  naturally  a  confirmed  conservative.  Their  personal  resist- 
ance to  changes  of  acquired  habits  and  ideas  defies  all  efforts  and 
arguments.  Added  to  this  is  the  fact  that  these  textile  oper- 
atives, scattered  widely  throughout  the  country,  most  of  them 
unable  to  communicate  with  each  other  even  when  working  in  the 
same  mill,  are,  nevertheless,  essential  parts  of  one  great  organiza- 
tion for  the  production  of  fabrics,  of  which  all  are  sold  by  the 
English  yard  or  pound.  To  obtain  a  merchantable  product  it  is 
essential  that  each  operator  should  do  his  work  carefully  and 
accurately.  An  error  in  the  weight  or  length  in  the  work  of  any 
of  these  processes  may  easily  spoil  the  finished  goods. 

A  proof  of  how  intimately  the  system  of  weights  and  measures 
is  connected  with  the  everyday  life  of  the  people  was  furnished 
in  January,  1902,  by  an  attempt  to  substitute  a  new  yarn  scale 
for  an  old  and  inaccurate  scale  that  had  been  used  for  years  in 
the  spinning-room  of  the  Assabet  Mills,  Maynard,  Mass.  There 
was,  doubtless,  no  desire  on  the  part  of  the  management  to  alter 
the  wages  of  the  help,  the  sole  object  of  the  change  being  to 
correct  the  inaccuracy  of  the  old  standard  and  to  bring  it  into 
harmony  with  the  system  in  the  many  other  mills  operated 
by  the  same  company.  Nevertheless,  a  change  of  the  scale 
changed  the  count  of  the  yarn  and,  in  the  absence  of  a  cor- 
responding change  of  the  price  list,  caused  a  reduction  of  wages 
as  effectually  as  a  straight  cut  in  wages  would  have  done.  A 
strike  of  the  spinners  followed  and  for  a  time  threw  over  a 
thousand  hands  out  of  employment.  This  incident  illustrates 
the  widespread  disturbance  which  is  bound  to  accompany  any 
attempt  to  change  from  one  system  of  weights  and  measures  to 
another. 

The  inch  is  the  accepted  standard  for  both  woven  and  finished 
widths.  Aside  from  the  difficulty  in  changing  from  the  inch  to 
the  centimetre  in  expressing  widths  in  the  mill,  there  would  be 
the  persistence  of  the  inch  for  .this  purpose  outside  the  mill,  in 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  165 

the  wholesale  and  retail  trades,  which  would  compel  the  textile 
worker  to  retain  the  present  standard. 

The  introduction  of  the  metric  system  into  this -country  wrould 
upset  the  standard  of  values.  The  metre  is  3f  inches  longer 
than  the  yard  and  the  difficulty  in  adjusting  prices  to  correspond 
with  this  difference  of  3f  inches  would  extend  to  every  branch 
of  the  textile  trade. 

A  change  of  textile  standards  would  seriously  impair,  if  not 
destroy,  the  value  of  the  vast  collection  of  textile  records,  con- 
sisting of  printed  literature  and  written  records  of  individual 
mills. 

To  these  considerations  must  be  added  the  size  of  the  Amer- 
ican textile  industry,  the  vast  extent  of  territory  affected,  the 
enormous  population  of  80,000,000,  increasing  at  the  rate  of 
4,000  per  day,  and  all  trained  to  the  use  of  the  English  standards. 

I  ask  the  reader  to  consider  calmly  for  a  while  the  facts  to 
which  I  have  but  hurriedly  called  attention;  the  complex  nature 
of  textile  processes  and  products ;  the  character  of  the  employes ; 
their  hard  struggle  for  existence;  their  meagre  educational  ad- 
vantages; their  inbred  conservatism;  the  necessity  of  perfect  har- 
mony of  action  by  all  these  operatives.  Consider  the  importance  of 
accurate  measurement  in  textile  manufacturing,  and  that  these 
millions  of  textile  operatives  are  constantly  engaged  in  making  such 
measurements.  Look  these  conditions  fairly  in  the  face.  Do  not 
belittle  nor  exaggerate  them.  Talk  with  the  operatives.  Go  into 
the  mill  and  view  them  from  the  standpoints  of  the  sorting,  scour- 
ing, picking,  carding,  combing,  drawing,  spinning,  spooling,  reel- 
ing, warping,  slashing,  weaving,  dyeing,  bleaching,  fulling, 
gigging,  drying,  shearing  and  final  finishing  processes,  from  any 
and  every  reasonable  and  practical  standpoint,  and  then  answer 
to  the  satisfaction  of  your  own  judgment  and  common-sense  this 
question : 

Is  it  possible  to  change  radically  our  textile  weights  and  meas- 
ures ? 

The  only  conclusions  that  can  be  reached  from  such  an  exam- 
ination of  the  facts  are  that  the  proposition  to  drive  the  present 
standards  out  and  the  metric  standards  into  this  industry  is  so 
absurd  as  to  deserve  no  consideration  whatever;  that  our  textile 
weights  and  measures  can  be  eradicated  only  by  exterminating  all 
who  use  them  and  by  destroying  all  our  textile  records. 

In  forming  an  opinion  on  this  question  we  are  fortunately  not 


166 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 


obliged  to  rely  on  personal  observations  which,  of  course,  are  con- 
clusive to  the  observer  only.  Since  1790  Continental  Europe  has 
been  the  scene -of  a  determined  struggle  to  change  all  standards 
of  weights  and  measures  to  the  metric  system,  and  before  com- 
paring the  system  we  have  with  the  one  we  are  asked  to  accept, 
it  will  be  profitable  to  study  the  condition  in  which  that  struggle 
has  left  European  textile  standards. 


THE  CONTINENTAL  CHAOS. 

Confusion's   cure   lies  not   in   these  confusions. — Romeo   and  Juliet. 

The  metric  system  was  a  product  of  the  French  Revolution. 
At  the  height  of  the  Reign  of  Terror,  011  August  1,  1793,  the 
following  decree  by  Danton  and  his  associates  marked  the  begin- 
ning of  that  policy  of  force  in  introducing  the  metric  system  into 
the  French  textile  industry  that  has  continued  to  the  present 
time: 

Decree  of  Aug.  1,  1793. 

Art.  1.  The  new  system  of  weights  and  measures  founded  on  the 
measurement  of  the  earth's  meridian  and  the  decimal  division  will  be  used 
throughout  the  Republic. 

On  September  23,  1795,  the  following  decree  provided  that  the 
metre  should  take  the  place  of  the  aune : 

Art.  1.  On  1  nivose  approaching,  the  use  of  the  metre  is  substituted 
for  that  of  the  aune  in  the  commune  of  Paris,  and  ten  days  after  that  date 
in  the  department  of  the  Seine. 

Art.  2.  In  consequence  all  merchants,  both  retail  and  wholesale,  sta- 
tionary and  travelling,  who  use  the  aune,  are  ordered  to  procure  metres. 

Art.  11.  The  police  will  make  in  their  respective  arrondissements  and 
several  times  during  the  year,  visits  to  the  shops  and  stores,  public  places, 
fairs  and  markets,  to  test  the  weights  and  measures. 

All  violators  of  this  ordinance  will  be  punished  by  the  confiscation  of  the 
illegal  measures,  and  will  be  brought  before  the  police  tribunal  where  a 
fine  will  be  imposed  to  suit  the  case. 

This  decree  was  carried  out  with  relentless  energy  by  the 
Revolutionary  government,  and  with  the  police  patrolling  the 
market  places  the  metre  was  gradually  forced  into  the  stores. 
The  French  manufacturers,  however,  continued  to  reel,  spin  and 
weave  by  the  old  standards,  and  to  remove  the  anomaly  of  ono 
standard  for  trade  and  another  for  manufacturing  the  following 
decree  was  issued  by  Bonaparte  in  1810: 

Art.  1.  On  and  after  March  1,  1811,  all  proprietors  of  spinning  mills 
shall  make  the  hanks  of  cotton,  linen,  hemp  or  wool,  each  100  metres  long, 
so  that  a  skein  shall  measure  1,000  metres  in  length. 


168  THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

Art.  2.  These  yarns  shall  be  ticketed  with  the  number  of  such  skeins  in 
one  kilogramme. 

Art.  3.  Violations  of  the  foregoing  provisions  shall  be  considered 
breaches  of  the  police  regulations  and  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than 
5  nor  more  than  15  francs  for  the  first  offence;  the  fine  may  be  increased 
for  a  repetition  of  the  offence. 

In  France  the  cotton  industry  was  then  next  to  silk  manufac- 
turing in  importance,  and  this  decree  threatened  to  throw  the 
business  of  manufacturing  and  selling  cotton  goods  into  con- 
fusion. The  protests  of  the  cotton  trade  forced  the  government 
to  a  compromise,  giving  the  manufacturer  a  standard  based  on  the 
new  French  pound  of  500  grammes  (which  was  11  grammes 
heavier  than  the  old  pound),  in  accordance  with  the  following 
royal  decree  of  June  7,  1819 : 

Art.  2.  On  and  after  Oct.  1,  1819,  all  cotton  spinners  of  the  kingdom 
shall  reel  their  cotton  yarn  in  100  metre  hanks,  of  which  10  shall  make 
1  skein  of  1,000  metres. 

Art.  3.  To  accomplish  this  object  all  the  said  spinners  shall  adopt  new 
reels  or  alter  those  they  now  use  so  that  in  future  all  mills  shall  be 
equipped  with  hexagonal  reels  of  1,428  metres,  provided  with  a  wheel  or 
counter  of  70  teeth. 

Art.  4.  On  and  after  the  same  date  all  cotton  from  French  mills  shall 
be  ticketed  with  a  number  indicating  the  number  of  hanks  forming  a 
pound  or  demi-decigramme. 

Art.  8.  Cotton  yarn  which  may  be  found  after  Oct.  1,  1819,  without  the 
mark  indicating  the  factory  or  country  of  origin  will  be  seized.  If  after 
a  trial  by  jury  the  yarn  shall  be  found  to  be  of  French  origin,  the  owner  or 
person  in  whose  possession  it  was  found  will  be  fined  6  per  cent,  of  the 
value  of  the  yarn. 

This  law  of  1819  was  a  formal  surrender  of  arbitrary  power  to 
the  power  of  established  usage  in  the  cotton  trade.  The  worsted 
industry  was  practically  non-existent  at  that  period.  The  carded 
woollen  branch  continued  to  use  their  old  standards  in  the  mill, 
and  the  law  could  not  reach  them  because  carded  yarn  was  mostly 
woven  and  spun  in  the  same  mill  and  did  not  appear  in  the 
market  places  under  the  eyes  of  the  police.  Linen  continued  to 
be  reeled  and  numbered  by  the  English  system  regardless  of  the 
imperial  decree. 

The  manufacture  of  silk  had  reached  too  high  a  state  of 
development  to  be  disturbed,  and  so  the  denier  and  the  aune  con- 
tinued to  be  the  standards  for  silk  yarn.  Fifty-six  years  later,  on 
June  13,  1866,  the  following  law  was  placed  on  the  French  statute 
books : 


THE    METEIC    FAILUKE.  169 

The  test  for  the  fineness  of  silk  shall  be  made  by  the  weight  of  500 
metres  in  demi-decigramme. 

The  following  preamble  of  a  resolution  by  the  Paris  Metric 
Congress  of  1900  shows  that  this  law  of  1866  was  a  dead  letter 
from  its  birth : 

Whereas:  The  official  French  numbering  for  silk,  defined  by  the  law  of 
1866  has  never  been  used  in  the  silk  trade. 

These  old  French  statutes  are  given  here  to  show  to  what  an 
extent  arbitrary  law  has  been  carried  into  the  mills  and  the 
market  places  to  make  French  textile  standards  metric.  Con- 
ditions then  were  extremely  favorable  for  such  an  attempt  to 
change  textile  standards.  At  that  time  textile  materials  were 
carded,  spun  and  woven  almost  wholly  by  hand  power.  The 
development  of  power  machinery  in  the  textile  industry  began  in 
1767  with  the  invention  of  the  Hargreaves  jenny,  followed  by 
the  Arkwright  spinning  frame  in  1769,  by  the  Crompton  mule 
in  1780,  and  the  Cartwright  loom  in  1785.  The  last  of  these 
four  great  textile  inventions  appeared  but  four  years  before  Louis 
XVI.,  on  the  eve  of  his  flight  to  Varennes,  gave  his  perfunctory 
approval  to  the  decree  establishing  the  metric  system  in  France. 
Yarn  was  then  spun  by  hand,  and  the  size  of  the  thread  regulated 
by  touch  and  not  by  measurement  and  weight.  The  great  textile 
inventions  we  have  mentioned  but  dimly  foreshadowed  the  devel- 
opment of  the  complicated  and  finely  adjusted  machinery  of  the 
present.  Standards  of  length,  area  and  weight  played  an  insig- 
nificant part  in  the  rude  textile  industry  of  that  time. 

While  textile  machinery  and  processes  have  been  slowly  and 
laboriously  brought  to  their  present  high  state  of  development, 
the  metric  system  was  finished  at  the  first  heat.  The  metre, 
then  supposed  to  be  the  10,000,000th  part  of  the  distance 
from  the  equator  to  the  pole,  gave  the  metric  standards  of 
length  and  weight,  just  as  we  find  them  to-day,  to  the  primitive 
French  textile  industry  eager  for  improved  methods  of  produc- 
tion. A  more  propitious  time  could  not  have  been  chosen  for  the 
introduction  of  the  system.  The  most  drastic  of  laws  were 
enacted,  and  since  that  time  it  has  been  the  settled  policy  of 
every  French  regime  to  make  French  textile  manufacturers  use 
the  metric  standards  only.  This  policy,  now  over  a  century  old, 
has  been  worse  than  a  total  failure ;  it  has  been  a  partial  success. 
The  manufacturing  standards  of  weight  and  measure  are  not 


170  THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

metric  in  a  single  branch  of  the  French  textile  industry  of  to-day. 
The  habits  and  the  necessities  of  the  rude  industry  of  a  century 
ago  have  proved  superior  to  the  power  of  autocratic  governments. 
The  partial  success  attained  by  thus  forcing  the  metric  system 
into  the  industry  has  resulted  only  in  increasing  the  confusion 
that  it  was  intended  to  remove.  The  evidence  on  this  point  in 
French  textile  literature  of  the  present  time  is  overwhelming, 
and  admits  of  no  denial.  It  is  taken  from  the  latest  French 
textile  books  and  journals ;  it  is  from  men  who  ardently  favor  the 
French  system. 

France  is  an  extensive  producer  of  linen  yarn,  the  best  flax  in 
the  world  being  produced  along  the  border  line  between  France 
and  Belgium  on  the  River  Lys.  Practically  all  of  this  yarn  is 
spun  to  the  English  standard. 

Lamoitier,  "  Traite  de  Tissage,"  p.  63:  The  English  system  of  numbering 
is  used  for  linen,  hemp  and  jute.  The  lea  is  300  yards  or  274.2  metres;  12 
leas  make  a  skein  of  3,600  yards;  100  skeins  a  bundle  of  360,000  yards.  A 
linen  thread  is  called  No.  1  when  1  skein  of  274.20  metres  (300  yards) 
weighs  453  grammes  (1  English  pound).  If  we  wish  to  transform  this 
into  the  French  system  (not  metric),  the  base  being  the  pound  of  50C 
grammes,  we  will  have  corresponding  to  French  No.  1 

274.2  x  500 


453 

By  the  official  (metric  system)  based  on  1,000  metres  per  1,000  grammes 
the  English  No.  1  corresponds  to  metric  No.  .605  or  605  metres  per  kilo- 
gramme. By  the  French  (not  metric)  system  No.  1  corresponds  to  English 
No.  3.30. 

That  is  the  result  of  the  struggle  for  100  years  to  make  the 
French  linen  industry  metric. 

The  revolt  in  the  French  cotton  industry  against  the  metric 
standard  based  on  the  metre  and  gramme  was  so  strong  that  the 
government  was  forced  to  let  the  cotton  spinners  use  the  French 
pound  of  500  grammes.  That  explains  why  the  metric  standard  of 
yarn  numbering  is  not  used  at  all  in  the  cotton  mills  of  France. 

Lamoitier,  "Traite  de  Tissage,"  p.  58:  The  official  French  system  is 
based  on  a  length  of  1,000  metres  and  a  constant  weight  of  500  grammes 
(French  pound.)  *  *  *  In  England  the  cotton  number  indicates  the 
number  of  840  yard  hanks  per  English  pound  or  453  grammes.  The  yard  is 
about  .91  metres.  840  yards  is  equal  to  840  x  .91  =  764.40  metres.  A  No. 


THE   METRIC   FAILURE.  171 

20  cotton  thread   (English)   has  a  length  of  764.40  metres  x  20  =15.288 
metres  per  pound  or  453  grammes,  and  per  kilogramme 

15288  x  1000  _  33  74g  metreg  per  kilogramme 

or  16,874  metres  per  demi-kilogramme   (French  pound). 

Our  calculations  are  approximate.  The  exact  length  of  840  yards  is 
768.0792  metres. 

This  shows  how  far  the  French  cotton  spinner  is  removed  from 
a  decimal  uniformity,  and  gives  a  hint  as  to  the  tremendous  diffi- 
culties he  meets  in  converting  one  system  into  another.  The 
illustrations  so  far  show  that  the  French  linen  yarn  standards  are 
English  and  not  metric;  this  is  because  the  trade  could  not  rid 
itself  of  the  English  yard-pound.  They  also  show  that  the  French 
cotton  yarn  standards  are  not  metric.  This  is  because  the  French 
cotton  spinners  would  not  base  their  yarn  standard  on  the  kilo- 
gramme. 

When  we  turn  to  the  French  woolen  and  worsted  standards,  we 
find  that,  owing  to  the  partial  success  in  forcing  the  adoption  of 
the  metric  yarn  standard,  the  woollen  and  worsted  industry  pre- 
sents a  perfect  babel  of  tongues. 

Lamoitier,  rindustrie  Textile,  Paris,  Oct.  15,  1902: 

We  still  have  the  diverse  standards  of  Roubaix,  Fourmies  and  Reims 
for  worsted,  the  moque  of  Sedan,  the  livre,  the  quart  and  the  sous  of 
Elboeuf,  the  yard  for  linen,  etc. 

Lamoitier  rindustrie  Textile,  Paris,  Oct.  15,  1903: 

And  what  do  we  find  here?  The  yarn  count  in  the  North  of  France 
is  a  length  and  in  the  Centre  a  weight.  What  is  more  it  is  a  weight  for 
organzine  and  a  length  for  organzine  waste!  I  will  take  my  oath  that 
the  manufacturer  of  Rouen,  if  he  has  not  studied  each  section  separately 
has  no  idea  what  is  the  standard  of  Reims  or  the  denier  of  Lyons  or  Milan. 
And  on  the  other  hand  the  manufacturers  of  Reims  and  Lyons  are  like- 
wise puzzled  in  making  comparisons  of  the  diverse  numberings  of  the 
diverse  materials. 

M.  Desire  Chedville,  textile  manufacturer,  Saint-Pierre-les-Elboeuf.  "  Paris 
Metric  Yarn  Congress,  1900,"  p.  87:  We  hope  no  new  burdens  will  be  im 
posed  on  the  industry,  but  if  we  look  the  facts  in  the  face,  we  will  find 
that  notwithstanding  the  decree  of  1810,  and  in  spite  of  the  serious  efforts 
put  forth  by  industrial  societies  of  many  districts,  we  still  have  the 
ancient  units  of  weights  and  measures  and  we  scarcely  comprehend  each 
other  when  we  talk  of  spinning  at  Reims,  Roubaix,  Elboeuf,  Sedan  or 
Vienna,  where  the  skeins  still  measure  1,420,  710,  3,600  or  1,500  metres. 

Remember  that  1,000  metres  is  the  only  metric  standard  for 


172  THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 

yarn  numbering,  and  that  the  lengths  mentioned  by  M.  Chedville 
are  simply  the  metric  equivalents  of  pre-Eevolutionary  standards 
which  have  withstood  the  metric  assaults  of  the  past  110  years. 

Following  is  Lamoitier's  statement  of  the  conditions  of  the 
worsted  industry,  showing  five  separate  and  distinct  systems  of 
numbering  yarn : 

Lamoitier,  "  Traite  de  Tissage,"  p.  63: 

In  certain  districts  of  France  and  Germany  the  old  units  are  still 
retained,  as  well  as  in  conservative  England. 


Roubaix,  hank     714  m., 
Fourmies     "          710  " 

unit  of  weight    .500  kg. 

"      "       "        1. 

Reims          "          700  " 

1. 

Germany     "       1,577  " 
or  1,000  " 
England      "         560  yds. 

1. 
"      "       "        1  pound 

Referring  to  carded  woollens,  this  writer  adds,  p.  24 : 

For  carded  yarn  there  are  likewise  the  old  standards  in  use  although 
the  official  metric  standard  (1,000  metres  per  kilogramme),  has  been  ad- 
opted at  Reims  and  in  the  north  of  France,  at  Verviers  and  in  Germany.  At 
Sedan  they  still  use  the  old  standard  (1,500  metres),  and  the  kilogramme 
for  unit  of  weight.  At  Elboeuf  the  skein  measures  3, 600  metres  (equivalent 
of  an  old  standard),  and  the  pound  is  taken  for  unit  of  weight.  The  pound 
is  divided  into  4  quarts,  each  quart  into  10  sous.  A  yarn  of  10  quarts,  2 
sous,  is  equivalent  to  2  22-40  for  a  length  of 

3,600  x  2  +  360°  x  22  =  9,120  metres  ! 
40 

We  shall  further  on  study  the  counts  of  silk,  cotton,  linen,  etc.  We 
regret  extremely  these  anomalies  which  obstruct  business,  lead  to  regret- 
table errors  and  wantonly  complicate  all  calculations. 

Ibid.,  p.  87:  We  here  give  a  table  for  wool  based  on  the  standard  of  710 
metres  (equivalent  of  an  old  standard),  leaving  it  to  the  reader  to  compile 
others  for  silk  and  the  vegetable  fibres  according  to  his  requirements. 
These  tables  are  used  only  for  facilitating  calculations.  For  estimating 
the  cost  of  an  article  we  believe  it  will  be  useful  to  all  engaged  in  the 
woollen  industry,  the  710  standard  being  the  most  extensively  used  of  all 
the  arbitrary  systems. 

Where  textile  standards  are  uniform,  as  in  the  United  States, 
the  length  of  the  filling  yarn  in  yards  per  pound  of  cloth  is  cal- 
culated by  simply  multiplying  the  width  in  inches  by  the  number 
of  picks  (filling  threads  per  inch).  The  following  extract  shows 
how  complicated  this  simple  operation  has  been  made  in  France 
by  a  century  of  nietric  laws : 


THE   METRIC   FAILURE.  173 

Lamoitier,  "  Traite  de  Tissage,"  p.  90:  The  picks  of  filling  being  ordinar- 
ily and  arbitrarily  counted  by  the  quarter-inch,  it  is  necessary  before  mak- 
ing the  calculation  to  convert  them  into  the  number  per  centimetre.  Fol- 
lowing is  the  table  for  these  calculations: 

Picks  Picks  Picks  Picks 

per  £  inch    per  cm.    per  £   inch    per  cm. 

(The  metric  equivalents  are  then  given  from  5  to  30  picks  per  quarter 
inch.) 

Remarks:  For  higher  sets  use  multiples  of  the  given  numbers.  There 
are  148  quarter-inches  per  metre.  1  centimetre  is  equal  to  1.48  quarter- 
inches. 

The  present  practice  in  measuring  the  width  of  ribbon,  tape 
and  other  narrow  fabrics  illustrates  perfectly  how  firmly 
weights  and  measures  are  established  and  maintained  by  the 
course  of  trade  and  industry.  France  is  the  home  of  the  ribbon 
industry.  The  French  line,  which  is  1-12  of  a  French  inch  became 
the  standard  for  measuring  the  width  of  narrow  fabrics  long 
before  the  French  Revolution.  Apparently  the  line  was  selected 
by  the  French  weaver  because  it  was  well  adapted  for  such  meas- 
urements, and  its  use  has  for  the  same  reason  been  extended 
with  the  extension  of  the  ribbon  trade  until  to-day  it  is  the  world 
standard  for  ribbon  widths. 

Frowein,  "  Kalkulator   fur  Artikel  der  Textilbranche,"  p.  90: 
The  loom  widths  of  ribbon  and  tape  are  given  in  French  lines.     The 
fineness  of  the  reed  is  indicated  by  the  number  of  dents  per  French  line. 

For  additional  evidence  on  this  point  reference  is  made  to  the 
estimate  of  cost  of  a  tape  fabric  by  the  same  writer  in  another 
part  of  this  chapter.  If  the  reader  will  take  the  trouble  to  in- 
quire at  the  ribbon  counter  of  any  American  dry  goods  store  he 
will  find  that  ribbon  widths  are  expressed  in  lines,  and  that  the 
clerk  at  the  counter  usually  has  a  special  rule  marked  off  in  lines 
for  measuring  such  widths. 

The  widths  of  many  wide  fabrics  are  expressed  in  quarter  yards 
or  ells.  This  is  the  custom  throughout  the  world,  and  in  Con- 
tinental Europe  results  in  an  exasperating  confusion  owing  to  the 
different  values  of  the  metre,  yard,  ell,  aune  and  other  units 
used  there.  The  introduction  of  the  metre  into  the  United  States 
would  cause  a  similar  confusion  with  us.  The  Continental  stand- 
ards for  widths  of  looms  and  cloth  are  thus  described : 

Lamoitier,  in  VIndustrie  Textile,  Paris,  Nov.  1902. 

I  wish  to  call  attention  to  another  anomaly  which  is  rather  exasperating. 


174  THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 

The  widths  of  English  looms  are  expressed  in  quarters  of  a  yard.  We  (the 
French),  thus  have  ±,  $,  f,  £,  f,  f,  \a,  11,  J^,  looms,  and  upwards.  These 
looms  allow  goods  to  be  woven  of  the  following  widths:  .95  m.,  1.20  m.,  1.45 
m.,  1.70  m.,  2  m.,  2.20  m.,  2.240  m.,  2.65  m.,  2.90  m.,  3  m.  It  is  probable  that 
a  French  loom  builder  to  be  logical  will  adopt  the  metre  as  the  base.  We 
have  here,  consequently,  a  pristine  confusion  which  will  spread  throughout 
the  world  and  increase  in  proportion  to  the  establishment  of  the  metric 
system. 

But  this  is  not  all.  A  resident  of  Miilhouse  expresses  the  widths  of  his 
cottonades  likewise  in  quarters  of  a  yard.  But  there  it  is  probably  the 
aune  that  is  taken  for  the  standard,  and  we  have  as  equivalents  of  \,  \, 
f.  i,  4,  If  4,  *4->  etc-»  tne  metric  measurements  .90  m.,  1.20  m.,  1.50  m.,  1.80 
m.,  2.1  m.,  2.40  m.,  2.70  m.,  3  m.,  etc. 

I  demand  the  abrogation  of  these  anomalies,  as  M.  le  depute  would 
say,  and  that  only  the  metre  be  allowed  for  the  measurement  of  all  widths, 
whether  of  looms  or  of  woven  goods!  Is  this  not  logic  itself? 

Because  of  its  peculiar  fitness  for  textile  work  the  French 
weaver  still  uses  the  French  inch  (1.08  English  inches)  for  gaug- 
ing the  density  or  set  of  woven  fabrics.  The  following  extract 
from  a  work  by  the  professor  of  weaving  at  the  Societe  Indus- 
trielle  d' Amiens  shows  that  the  French  instruments  for  determin- 
ing the  set  of  a  fabric  are  made  by  the  inch  or  by  both  the  inch 
gnd  the  centimetre.  Apparently  none  are  wholly  metric  : 

Dantzer,  "  Trait6  de  Tissage,"  p.  137: 

The  density  of  a  fabric  is  expressed  by  the  number  of  threads  in  a  unit 
of  length.  The  centimetre,  £  inch  and  inch  are  used  for  this  purpose. 
By  the  following  table  inches  can  be  reduced  immediately  to  centimetres: 

\  Inch     -  .0069  m. 

1  inch  =  .0276  m. 
45  inches  =  1.242  m. 
78  inches  =  2.153  m.,  etc. 

The  density  or  set  is  determined  by  the  aid  of  a  small  instrument  called 
a  thread  counter.  It  consists  of  a  plate  in  which  is  cut  a  rectangular 
opening  of  which  one  side  measures  1  centimetre  and  the  other  side  £ 
inch.  There  are  thread  counters  in  which  the  openings  are  respectively  -J 
centimetre,  \  inch,  1  centimetre,  £  inch,  2  centimetres  and  \  inch. 

Among  the  most  important  of  textile  calculations  are  those  for 
estimating  the  cost  of  manufactured  goods.  An  error  in  such  an 
estimate  might  easily  cause  serious  loss  to  a  mill.  On  page  91  of 
Lamoitier,  "  Traite  de  Tissage/'  is  given  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of 
a  worsted  serge,  which  shows  how  the  survival  of  the  ancient 
units  of  weights  and  measures  complicates  such  calculations  in 
France  at  the  present  time.  The  yarn,  instead  of  being  num- 


THE   METRIC   FAILURE.  175 

bered  by  the  decimal  or  metric  system  of  1,000  metres  per  kilo- 
gramme, is  numbered  by  the  Fourmies  system,  whose  metric  equiva- 
lent is  710  metres  per  kilogramme.  The  weight  of  the  yarn  num- 
bered by  this  inconvenient  system  is  calculated  from  the  length. 
The  picks  are  stated  arbitrarily  as  37  per  centimetre,  evidently  to 
make  the  operation  as  simple  as  possible.  As  we  have  already 
seen,  the  French  use  an  inch  equal  to  1-3 7th  of  a  metre  for  count- 
ing picks,  and  100  picks  per  French  inch  is  equal  to  37  per  centi- 
metre. This,  as  Lamoitier's  table  shows,  is  about  the  only  set 
for  which  the  old  and  the  metric  expressions  are  in  Avhole  num- 
bers, and  for  practically  all  others,  such  numbers  as  17.76,  23.68, 
or  39.96  picks  must  be  used.  The  great  liability  to  error  made 
under  such  conditions  needs  no  further  demonstration. 

In  ^Industrie  Textile,  Paris,  issue  of  August  15,  1902,  appears 
a  description  of  a  new  French  ring  spinning  frame  built  by  Du- 
fassez-Allard  et  Simon  and  installed  in  the  mill  of  M.  Leclercq- 
Dupire  at  Wattrelos,  from  which  we  make  the  following  extract : 

The  production  of  warp  yarn  No.  22,  Roubaix  system  of  1,420  metres 
per  kilogramme  (metric  equivalent  of  the  old  Roubaix  standard),  is  as 
follows : 

Mules  19.83  hanks  per  65 £  hours. 

Ordinary  Ring  Frames  24.06  hanks  per  63  hours. 

New  Ring  Frames  30.86  hanks  per  63  hours. 

*  *  *  The  numbers  in  the  following  table  are  based  on  the  Roubaix 
standard  of  1,420  metres  per  kilogramme,  and  the  1,000  metre  equivalents 
are  based  on  the  kilogramme.  (Here  follows  a  table  giving  the  Roubaix 
numbers  by  which  the  yarn  was  spun,  together  with  the  metric  equiv- 
alents.) 

This  statement  of  the  test  of  a  new  machine  is  the  strongest 
kind  of  proof  that  the  Roubaix  and  riot  the  metric  standard  is 
used  by  the  spinners  in  the  Roubaix  district.  I  want  to  call  at- 
tention to  the  discrepancy  between  Lamoitier  and  this  article  as  to 
the  definition  of  the  metric  equivalent  of  the  Roubaix  standard. 
One  gives  it  as  714  metres  per  French  pound,  equal  to  1,428 
metres  per  kilogramme;  the  other  states  it  as  1,420  metres  per 
kilogramme.  This  shows  the  confusion  in  the  French  mills.  Here 
is  a  French  opinion  on  this  point : 

Lamoitier  in  V Industrie  Textile,  October  15,  1902: 

To  say  that  all  this  leads  to  insignificant  variations  is  an  error.  I  know, 
for  example,  what  serious  disputes  have  arisen  from  the  difference  of  the 
standards  of  Roubaix  and  Fourmies.  Do  you  want  an  example? 

I  know  a  shipper  of  Cambrai  who  sent  from  5,000  to  10,000  kilogrammes 


176  THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 

of  worsted  to  be  spun  to  No.  100's  on  cops,  to  Messrs.  F.,  at  Fourmies. 
The  shipper  lived  in  the  Fourmies  district,  but  (in  a  way  absolutely 
abusive  in  my  opinion),  reckoned  the  yarn  by  skeins  of  714  metres,  thus 
gaining  4  metres  per  kilo  as  compared  with  the  Fourmies  standard.  The 
work  was  paid  for  by  the  number  of  skeins  and  the  shipper  thus  gained 
400  metres  per  kilo.  As  the  shipper  delivered  only  enough  material  to 
make  the  number  of  skeins  required,  there  arose  a  violent  dispute  which 
lasted  several  months. 

Turning  to  the  French  silk  industry  we  find  still  more  striking 
illustrations  of  the  survival  of  old  standards.  When  the  metric 
system  was  established  over  a  century  ago,  cotton,  linen,  wool  and 
other  loose  fibres  were  converted  into  yarn  by  rude  processes  that 
were  little  if  any  better  than  those  employed  at  the  dawn  of 
history.  The  present  development  of  the  spun  yarn  industry  is 
due  to  comparatively  recent  improvements  in  carding,  combing 
and  spinning  machinery.  We  have  seen  how,  in  spite  of  these 
favoring  conditions,  the  mediaeval  standards  of  these  industries 
still  survive  in  France.  In  the  silk  industry  the  conditions  \vere 
different.  Silk  is  spun  by  the  worm  to  such  a  degree  of  fineness 
and  uniformity  as  to  defy  all  attempts  of  man  to  equal  it  by  arti- 
ficial means.  This  was  as  true  a  century  ago  as  it  is  to-day,  and 
explains  why  the  manufacture  of  silk  at  the  birth  of  the  metric 
system  had  reached  a  much  higher  development  than  the  cotton, 
woollen  or  linen  industries.  Silk  manufacturing  then  resembled 
the  highly  developed  textile  industry  of  the  present  day,  and  we 
may,  therefore,  learn  by  a  study  of  the  progress  of  the  metric 
system  in  the  silk  industry  the  probable  result  of  an  attempt  to 
change  our  textile  standards.  We  can  begin  such  an  examina- 
tion in  no  better  way  than  by  presenting  statements  of  the  friends 
of  the  metric  system  as  to  the  condition  of  silk  weights  and  meas- 
ures in  France  and  the  rest  of  Continental  Europe  at  the  present 
time : 

Lamoitier,  I' Indus  trie  Textile,  October  15,  1902: 

It  is  absolutely  unworthy  of  us  French,  who  were  the  first  to  find  and 
apply  the  metric  system,  to  retain  the  aune  and  the  denier  for  measuring 
silk. 

M.  Jules  Persoz,  Silk  Conditioning  House,  Paris,  France,  "  Paris  Metric 
Congress,"  1900,  p.  33: 

The  size  of  silk  is  expressed  in  different  ways  in  the  different  countries. 
In  France  a  law  of  June  13,  1866,  provides  that  the  number  of  silk  shall 
indicate  the  weight  in  grammes  of  a  skein  500  metres  long.  Although  legal 
this  standard  has  not  been  adopted  by  the  trade,  accustomed  to  a  system 


TlfE   METRIC   FAILURE.  177 

based  on  the  weight  in  grammes  or  deniers  (about  .053  gramme),  and  a 
length  of  400  aunes  (476  metres).  Nearly  the  entire  European  trade  em- 
ploys similar  variations. 

M.  Chamonard,  29  Rue  Puits-Caillot,  Lyon,  France,  at  "  Paris  Metric 
Congress,"  1900,  p.  35: 

There  is,  to  be  sure,  considerable  apparent  confusion  in  the  measures 
used  in  the  various  silk  markets.  In  France,  in  spite  of  the  law  of  1866, 
the  denier  (.0531  gramme) — 476  metre  is  used;  in  Germany,  the  Turin 
system  denier  (.05336  gramme) — 476  metres;  in  Italy,  the  denier  (.05 
gramme) — 450  metres.  But  these  local  measures  which  seem  very  diverse 
are  nearly  equivalent.  Thus,  20  denier  Italian  corresponds  to  19.80  denier 
French  and  to  19.90  denier  Turin.  Now  the  new  numbers  proposed  will  be 
11  per  cent,  higher,  a  20  denier  Italian  would  be  22.20  by  the  new  method. 
That  would  cause  complete  confusion  in  our  ideas  of  to-day  as  to  the  rela- 
tion existing  between  the  number  and  the  size  of  silk.  And  thus  under 
the  pretence  of  unification  we  create  disorder. 

Ibid.,  p.  79: 

I  will  add  in  two  words  that  the  length  of  the  500  metre  is  so  contrary 
to  established  usage  that  it  has  never  been  used.  The  law  providing  it 
has  rested  a  dead  letter  since  its  passage  twenty-five  years  ago. 

M.  J.  Testenoire,  Silk  Conditioning  House,  Lyons,  France.  "  Paris  Metric 
Congress,"  1900,  p.  79: 

Because  of  the  difficulties  in  adopting  the  standard  called  international 
(demi-decigrammes  per  500  metres),  the  conditioning  houses  of  Lyon,  El- 
berfeld  and  Crefeld,  which  have  experimented  in  this  direction,  have  been 
forced  to  return  to  the  ancient  measures  to  satisfy  their  customers.  Be- 
sides the  Lyon  and  Italian  standards  there  are  two  others,  those  of  Turin 
and  Milan,  which  are  nearly  abandoned.  The  official  French  system  is 
not  used.  There  remain,  therefore,  the  Lyon  and  Italian  systems. 

Lamoitier,  "  Traite  de  Tissage,"  p.  49 : 

The  count  of  silk  indicates  the  number  of  deniers  in  the  weight  of  400 
aunes.  Besides,  other  standards  are  used,  the  aune  and  denier  of  Mont- 
pellier  and  of  Lyon.  The  Lyon  aune  measures  1.19  metres;  and  the  de- 
nier -weighs  .0531  gramme.  There  is  also  the  Italian  system.  In  Italy 
and  Switzerland  the  demi-decigramme  is  taken  for  the  denier  and  450 
metres  for  the  length. 

The  daily  market  reports  afford  the  most  convincing  proof  of 
the  survival  of  the  old  system  of  yarn  numbering,  and  the  total 
neglect  of  the  metric  system  of  numbering  in  the  French  silk  in- 
dustry. In  Le  Moniteur  de  Tissage  des  Soieries,  published  at 
Lyon,  under  date  of  June  12,  1903,  appears  a  long  list  of  silk 
quotations  furnished  by  Bayer,  Mozet,  Guilliee  &  Cie.  of  Lyon. 
The  list  includes  silk  from  France,  Spain,  Italy,  Hungary,  Syria, 
Bengal,  China  and  Japan.  The  size  of  every  quality  of  organsin, 


178  THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 

trame  and  grege  is  given  by  the  denier  system,  based  on  the 
denier  and  aune.  The  metric  sizes  are  not  mentioned  at  all. 
This  would  be  uniformity  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  silk  is 
sold  in  bulk  by  the  kilo,  the  cloth  by  the  metre,  thus  confusing 
textile  calculations  and  ideas  with  the  incommensurable  aune  and 
metre,  denier  and  kilogramme. 

The  denier-aune  remains  to  this  day  the  French  standard  for 
numbering  silk.  The  essential  factor,  the  ratio  between  length 
and  weight,  indicating  the  length,  weight,  diameter  and  cubic 
capacity  of  the  silk  thread,  is  the  same  as  before  the  origin  of 
the  metric  system.  The  introduction  of  the  metric  system  has 
compelled  French  manufacturers  to  employ  in  calculations  the 
awkward  metric  equivalents,  the  number  of  times  .0531  gramme  is 
contained  in  the  weight  of  476  metres,  instead  of  the  old  and  con- 
venient standard,  deniers  per  400  aunes. 

The  French  silk  manufacturer  of  to-day  would  be  far  better 
off  as  regards  silk  standards,  if  the  metric  system  had  never  been 
devised,  for  he  would  have  the  aune  for  all  textile  measurements, 
cloth  as  well  as  yarn,  instead  of  the  mixture  of  units  and  their 
exasperating  equivalents.  Napoleon  recognized  this  when  he 
said: 

The  geometers,  the  algebraists,  were  consulted  in  a  question  which  was, 
in  fact,  purely  one  of  an  administrative  character.  They  thought  that 
the  unity  of  weights  and  measures  should  be  deduced  from  some  natural 
order,  so  that  it  might  be  adopted  by  all  the  nations. 

The  law  needed  for  this  matter  was  so  simple  that  it  could  have  been 
written  out  in  twenty-four  hours,  and  could'  have  been  adopted  and  put 
into  practice  throughout  the  whole  of  France  in  less  than  a  year.  All 
that  was  required  was  to  make  the  units  of  weights  and  measures  of 
Paris  the  only  legal  units  throughout  Prance. 

The  Government  and  the  artisans  had  for  generations  past  used  these 
weights  and  measures. 

By  sending  standards  to  every  commune,  and  by  ordering  the  adminis- 
tration and  the  tribunals  not  to  recognize  any  others,  this  reform  would 
have  been  carried  out  without  trouble,  inconvenience,  or  coercive 
measures. 

It  is  amusing  as  well  as  instructive  to  study  the  erratic  and 
futile  attempts  to  change  the  silk  standards  of  France.  The  prob- 
lem was  so  difficult  that  no  interference  with  established  standards 
was  attempted  until  1866,  when  a  law  was  passed  providing  that 
the  silk  count  shall  indicate  the  demi-decigrammes  per  500  metres, 
or  the  equivalent,  grammes  per  myriametre.  This  was  proclaimed 
as  the  "  universal  silk  standard,"  was  endorsed  by  Metric  Con- 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  179 

gresses,  extolled  in  newspapers,  at  banquets  and  other  public 
places,  and  "  adopted  "  by  public  conditioning  houses,  which  had 
the  new  count  marked  on  their  tickets. 

During  this  period  the  new  system  styled  "  official  "  was  in- 
cluded in  all  the  books  on  silk  manufacturing,  with  pages 
of  tables  giving  the  equivalents  of  the  old  and  new  counts.  La- 
moitier  thus  describes  it  : 

"  Traite  de  Tissage,"  p.  50: 

Because  of  the  fineness  of  silk  and  the  method  of  reeling  it,  the  method 
of  numbering  by  the  kilogramme  (1,000  metre  hanks  per  kilogramme), 
can  seldom  be  used.  The  last  (Metric)  Congress  of  Brussels  settled  the 
question  of  the  unification  of  the  metric  system  of  numbering  by  retaining 
the  fixed  length  base,  and  substituting  the  myriametre  for  the  aune,  and 
the  gramme  for  the  denier.  And  thus  we  obtain  a  system  (fixed  length) 
very  simple,  practical,  suited  for  all  calculations,  and  universal  because  all 
of  its  units  are  metric. 


e  that  this,  like  all  other  metric  systems,  was  born  "  uni- 
versal/7 

Then  came  a  period  of  uncertainty  during  which  the  kilometre, 
myriametre,  and  450-metre  systems  found  their  advocates.  The 
450-metre-demi-decigramme  system  was  practically  the  metric 
equivalent  of  the  old  denier-aune  standard,  but  could  not  be 
juggled  into  anything  decimal.  If  the  denier-aune  standard  was 
based  on  the  gramme  the  length  was  9  kilometres;  if  on  the  deci- 
gramme it  was  900  metres,  and  if  on  the  demi-decigramme  it  was 
450  metres.  None  of  these  was  decimal.  Something  had  to  be 
done,  however,  and  the  Metric  Congress  at  the  Paris  Exposition  of 
1900,  mindful  of  former  failures  to  make  the  silk  workers  use 
"  universal  "  standards,  formally  admitted  defeat  and  adopted  the 
equivalent  of  the  denier-400  aune  in  the  following  resolutions  : 

Whereas,  The  official  French  numbering  for  silk,  defined  by  the  law 
of  ]866,  has  never  been  used  in  the  silk  trade,  and, 

Whereas,  The  only  systems  in  use  are  the  Lyons,  used  in  the  United 
States,  France,  and  Japan;  the  Italian,  used  in  most  of  the  other  silk 
countries,  notably  in  Germany,  Austria,  Italy  and  Switzerland,  and, 

Whereas,  It  is  important  while  seeking  unification  on  metric  and  deci- 
mal bases  to  take  into  account  the  customs  of  the  different  silk  markets, 
and, 

Whereas,  The  difference  between  the  two  above-named  systems  is  neg- 
ligible, therefore, 

Resolved,  That  the  Italian  system,  which  is  metric  and  decimal,  .be 
adopted  by  all  nations  as  the  international  standard. 

Adopted  unanimously. 


180  THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 

In  other  words : 

Whereas,  Water  will  not  run  up  hill  at  our  command,  therefore, 
Resolved,  That  water  shall  in  future  run  down  hill. 

It  is  encouraging  to  have  a  Metric  Congress  "  adopt "  a  stand- 
ard for  anything  because  it  is  in  general  use.  Some  time  they 
may  learn  at  Paris  that  there  are  36  inches  in  a  yard,  16  ounces  in 
a  pound  and  840  yards  in  a  skein  of  spun  yarn.  This  glimmer  of 
common  sense  was  short-lived.  The  Congress  adjourned,  leav- 
ing the  control  of  "  universal "  weights  and  measures  to  a  per- 
manent committee,  who,  after  the  new  demi-decigramme-450-metre 
standard  began  to  appear  in  technical  literature,  announced  on 
April  22,  1903,  that  this  "  universal "  silk  system  had  been  re- 
placed by  one  based  on  the  1,000  metre  hanks  per  kilogramme. 
And  the  Frenchman  who  in  1900  had  declared  that  a  fixed  weight 
system  could  not  be  used  for  numbering  silk  yarn,  thus  hailed  a 
fixed  weight  system  as  the  silk  standard  for  the  universe. 

Lamoitier,  V Industrie  Textile,  July,  1903: 

This  is  the  standard  established  for  the  universe.  Glory  to  the  per- 
manent committee  of  the  Congress  of  1900  who  have  reached  so  soon  such 
a  marvellous  result! 

And  the  silk  workers  of  Lyons  are  still  reeling  and  weaving 
by  the  denier-aune.  Metric  systems  may  come  and  metric  sys- 
tems may  go,  but  the  denier-aune  goes  on  forever. 

In  mathematics  certain  truths  are  considered  self-evident.  Ko 
line  of  reasoning  can  demonstrate  them  more  clearly  than  they 
demonstrate  themselves.  This  is  the  case  with  the  evidence  of 
the  confusion  existing  in  the  textile  weights  and  measures  of 
France  to-day.  Although  France  is  the  birthplace  and  has  been 
the  home  of  the  metric  system  for  more  than  113  years,  textile 
weights  and  measures  are  no  nearer  uniformity  than  in  other 
parts  of  Continental  Europe.  The  evidence  as  to  this  confusion 
outside  of  France  is  likewise  overwhelming.  Every  technical 
work  on  textile  manufacturing,  every  textile  journal  published  in 
Europe  is  filled  with  the  proof  of  it.  I  will  present  a  small  por- 
tion of  such  testimony,  enough,  however,  to  convince  the  most 
•sceptical.  During  the  revision  of  the  German  tariff  last  year, 
1902,  an  agitation  was  started  to  dispense  with  the  English  and 
use  the  metric  system  for  assessing  duties  on  imports  of  yarn. 
The  committee  of  the  Reichstag  gave  a  hearing  on  the  ques- 
tion, and  the  following  item  from  the  Leipziger  Monatsclirift  tells 


THE  METRIC  FAILURE.  181 

how  fiercely  the  proposition  was  resisted  by  German  textile 
manufacturers : 

At  the  sitting  of  the  tariff  commission  on  June  24  (1902),  the  proposal 
to  introduce  the  metric  system  for  cotton  yarn  came  up.  According  to 
Miinch-Ferber,  delegate  to  the  Reichstag,  and  a  textile  manufacturer,  the 
adoption  of  the  amendment  providing  for  the  use  of  the  metric  system  for 
yarn  would  lead  to  "ungodly  disorder"  (heillose  Verwirrung),  in  the 
domestic  weaving  industry  because  all  the  machines  are  built  to  suit  the 
English  system  of  numbering. 

"  Kalkulator  f  iir  Artikel  der  Textilbranche,"  by  Friedrich 
Frowein,  published  in  1901  at  Barmen,  Germany,  is  a  practical 
treatise  written  for  the  purpose  of  simplifying  textile  calcula- 
tions for  everyday  use.  It,  therefore,  represents  not  only  Ger- 
man practice  but  also  the  simplest  form  to  which  such  calcula- 
tions can  be  reduced  for  German  manufacturers. 

Frowein,  "Kalkulator,"  1901,  p.  3: 

Cotton  yarn  is  reckoned  by  the  English  hank  and  reel;  this  has  been 
adopted  by  all  spinners  of  nearly  every  country.  The  price  is  likewise 
always  given  per  English  pound. 

On  page  5  he  begins  an  attempt  to  simplify  the  confusion  of 

standards.  Ten  different  units  of  length  are  mentioned  as  fol- 
lows: 

Prussian  ell  25£  inches  or  67     cm. 

Wurtemburg  ell  34-j.       "         "  62     cm. 

Vienna  ell  29$        "         "  78     cm. 

Baden  ell  20          "         "  60     cm. 

Swedish  ell  24                   "  60     cm. 

Russian  archin  28                   "  72     cm. 

English  yard  36          "         "  91     cm. 

Danish  ell  24          "         "  63     cm. 

Bavarian  ell  34$        "         "  84     cm. 

Saxon  ell  24          "         "  56$  cm. 

The  author  explains  the  relation  of  each  standard  to  the  metric 
system.  This  requires  ten  paragraphs,  each  accompanied  by  a 
comparative  table.  One  will  give  an  idea  of  all : 

Frowein,.  p.  9 : 

A  Bavarian  ell  has  341  Inches  or  84  cm.  A  metre  is  equal  to  41^-  Bava- 
rian inches.  One  thread  of  single  yarn  per  centimetre  in  a  fabric  one 
Bavarian  ell  wide  and  54  Bavarian  ells  or  45  metres  long,  gives  a  length 


182  THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 

of  3,780  metres  and,  at  60  grammes  per  100  metres  for  No.  1  yarn  (Eng- 
lish), a  weight  of  2,268  grammes. 

6  Faden  No.  1  (English)  =     504  Faden  =   22,680  Metres  =  13,608  Grammes. 
12      "          "  "         =1,008      "      =    45,360      "      =27,216 

18      "          "  "         =1,512      "      =    68,040      "      =40,824 

22      "          "  "         =1,848      "      =    83,160      "      =49,896 

28      "          "  "         =2,352      "      =105,840      "      =63,504 

The  weight  for  any  size  is  found  by  dividing  the  gramme  number  by  the 
yarn  number  (English). 

A  similar  formula  is  given  for  each  of  the  other  nine  units, 
and  in  every  one  the  English  standard  of  yarn  numbering  (840 
yds.  per  Ib.)  is  the  only  one  mentioned,  because  it  is  the  only 
system  used  for  cotton  in  Germany.  These  explanations  still 
leave  the  reader  entirely  in  the  dark  as  to  the  relations  between 
each  ell  and  the  other  nine  standards.  Such  a  confusion  of  stand- 
ards beggars  description.  It  shows  how  the  German  textile 
industry  is  handicapped  to-day. 

Next  comes  another  series  of  ten  explanations  of  how  to  cal- 
culate the  weight  of  yarn  when  the  density  of  threads  (set)  is 
given  in  threads  per  inch.  One  will  illustrate  all : 

Frowein,  p.  11: 

Cloth  1  Prussian  ell  wide  and  100  ells  long. 

1  thread  per  inch  (1  ell  =  25^  inches),  25£  threads  per  100  ells  long  = 
2,550  ells  =  1,020  grammes  (75  ells  =50  metres  =1,700  metres  No.  1  per 
100  metres  60  grammes). 

The  following  extract  shows  the  use  of  the  English  inch  for 
gauging  twist  in  yarn: 

Ibid.,  p.  16: 

The  usual  twist  is  from  25  to  30  turns  per  English  inch.  The  expression, 
so-and-so  many  turns,  always  means  per  English  inch  and  this  is  the  uni- 
versal practice  in  the  trade.  In  order  to  determine  the  turns  accurately,  the 
number  in  a  metre  as  indicated  by  a  twist-counter  is  divided  by  40,  as 
there  are  40  English  inches  in  one  metre. 

Note  the  tendency  in  practice  to  lengthen  the  metre  to  even 
inches. 

The  same  work  contains  a  series  of  estimates  of  cost,  covering 
a  wide  range  of  textile  fabrics  which  include  cotton,  linen, 
worsted  and  silk  cloths,  ribbons,  tapes,  elastic  fabrics,  wool  lace, 
rick-rack,  bobbin  lace,  etc.  In  every  one  except  silk  goods  the 
English  system  is  predominant,  and  for  silk  the  old  aune  and 
denier  are  the  standards.  One  of  them,  the  estimate  of  cost  of 


THE   METRIC   FAILURE.  183 

cotton  tape  fabric,  is  shown  at  Fig.  2,  and  in  each  of  the  others  a 
similar  tangle  of  English,  metric  and  local  standards  exists.  In 
this  estimate  a  separate  column  is  inserted  for  prices  per  English 
pound/  showing  the  prominent  place  occupied  by  this  Anglo- 
American  standard  in  the  textile  industry  of  Continental  Europe. 
The  reed  is  gauged  by  the  number  of  dents  per  French  line. 
The  yarn  counts  in  both  warp  and  filling  are  English,  based  on 
the  840  yard  standard.  The  picks  of  filling  are  given  as  so  many 
per  French  inch.  The  weight  of  the  warp  yarn  is  calculated  in 
metric  grammes  from  the  English  counts,  and  extended  at  a  price 
in  marks  per  English  pound.  The  length  of  the  filling  yarn  is 
calculated  per  100  metres  of  cloth  from  the  picks  per  French  inch 
and  the  width  in  French  lines.  The  weight  of  the  filling  in 
grammes  is  then  calculated  from  the  English  yarn  count  and  the 
length  in  metres.  This  weight  in  grammes  is  then  extended  at 
a  price  in  marks  per  English  pound. 

All  of  this  blind  staggering  among  a  lot  of  incommensurable 
units,  consisting  of  the  French  inch,  English  yard,  metric  metre, 
French  line,  English  pound  and  metric  gramme  is  necessary  to 
arrive  at  the  cost  of  cotton  tape  measured  lengthways  in  metres 
and  widthways  in  French  lines.  This  is  a  simplified  method  of 
u  using  the  metric  system  in  Germany."  It  shows  what  the 
United  States  must  come  to  if  the  system  is  ever  introduced  here. 

On  page  82  Frowein  says: 

All  plans  to  dispense  with  the  English  hank  (840  yards)  have  hereto- 
fore involved  the  changing  of  our  reels  and  skeins.  From  a  practical 
standpoint  we  do  not  view  this  as  possible  and  we  consider  that  the  work  of 
a  calculator  should  be  confined  rather  to  the  conversion  of  the  various 
lengths  and  hanks  now  in  use  into  metric  standards.  While  theorists  and 
some  others  in  trade  circles  favor  the  adoption  of  the  French  system  with 
1,000  metres,  the  author  does  not  believe  that  its  introduction  is  possible.  On 
one  side  the  cost  of  changing  our  machinery,  and  on  the  other  the  altera- 
tion in  yarn  numbers,  offer  insurmountable  obstacles  to  the  project.  Fur- 
thermore we  do  not  believe  that  the  introduction  of  the  metric  system 
would  be  of  any  advantage  to  the  spinner.  The  English  spinner  undoubt- 
edly sets  the  standard  with  his  system,  that  has  been  used  for  more  than  a 
century  and  is  known  throughout  the  world,  and  he  will  not  consent  to 
the  introduction  of  the  metric  system.  The  German  and  French  spinners 
who  use  the  English  hank  will  likewise  refuse  to  give  their  consent. 

That  is  the  opinion  of  a  practical  German  in  close  touch  with 
the  textile  trade. 

We  have  taken  from  this  little  book  by  Frowein  but  a  few  ex- 


184 


THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 


Zwirn-Band. 

£    VsT  5  stichs  Rieth  zu  1.  64  Schuss  p§r.?A'J 
Ketfe  3*3*  Faden  8£..Jwira.  Ein£chlaa_40._Water 

Preis 

WWL 

Preis 
ft 

100  Mtr. 

Eisengarn. 

Kette: 
33  Faden  X  I1/*  gr.  —50  gr. 
Einwirken  lO^/p        ==  o    :' 

'   Stuff    

1.80 
-.25 

-.20 

2.25 

i.lu 
—.45 
-.35 

1.90 

! 
I 

-.2b 

-.20 

-.48 
-.03 
—.02 

oft 

Farbe  schwarz  .    . 
Winden     .... 

lEin^engl.J'fd,  Mk.  2.25,  folglich  55  gr.     .    . 
Einscblag: 

tiKlXP^BtiSi 

Einwirken  5°/o  —    1^'.'. 

clurch  lg"  i.Sff11  =  31  Fnden  :i  1"(  >  Mtr. 
SIXlVogr.  —  j?  gr. 

Farbe  und  liistrireu 
Wimlen    •    .    .    . 

EineiigJ.  .  Pf  <L  Mk.  1.90,  folglich  47  gr.     .    . 
Verlust  (')  °/o                     "                 .... 

Kettenscheeren  A  100  Fa«leiv-*i  100  Mtr.  6  Pig. 

Frncht  und  Aufinachung  

-.17 

1.20 

—.10 

1.30 

i 

FIG.  2.— A  GERMAN  ESTIMATE  OF  COST  OF  COTTON  TAPE. 

Dotted  lines  =  Old  French  Standards. 
Broken  lines  =  English  Standards. 
Double  lines  =  Metric  Standards. 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  185 

tracts  showing  the  chaos  of  European  textile  standards.  To  take 
them  all  would  mean  to  translate  the  entire  book,  for  from  begin- 
ning to  end  there  is  an  uninterrupted  mixture  of  English,  local 
and  metric  standards. 

A  sample  card  published  in  Bayreuth,  Germany,  by  Otto 
Holtzhausen,  shows  14  lengths  of  white  cotton  yarn,  ranging 
from  No.  6  to  No.  45,  mounted  on  a  black  ground  with  the 
number  above  each.  In  the  few  explanatory  words  attached 
appears  this  sentence :  "  Die  Nummernbezeichnung  ist  die 
englische."  (The  counts  are  English.)  This  collection  is  issued 
for  sale  to  German  merchants  and  manufacturers.  There 
is  not  one  American  cotton  manufacturer  whose  ideas  of  yarn 
sizes  are  not  expressed  exactly  by  this  German  card.  Every  one 
of  the  46,000,000  cotton  spindles  in  England  is  spinning  yarn  by 
its  standard.  The  French  spinners  with  their  minds  muddled  by 
the  use  of  both  the  English  system  and  a  French  system  which 
is  not  metric,  are  all  acquainted  with  the  English  numbers  on  the 
Bayreuth  card.  The  spinner  in  Germany,  where  it  was  published, 
in  Switzerland,  Holland,  Belgium,  Austria,  Italy,  Spain  and 
Kussia,  are  using  and  are  perfectly  familiar  with  its  standard. 
If  we  journey  still  further  around  the  globe  we  will  find  the 
5,000,000  spindles  of  India  spinning  cotton  yarn  by  the  same 
standard  and  at  less  cost  than  in  any  other  place  on  earth.  Let 
us  go  still  further  until  China  is  reached ;  open  the  German  card 
and  the  almond  eyes  of  the  celestial  cotton  spinner  will  brighten 
in  recognition  of  its  numbers  and  sizes.  Passing  northward  to 
Japan  we  will  find  that  the  card  likewise  indicates  the  sizes  of 
Japanese  yarn.  Crossing  the  Pacific  to  the  United  States  we 
shall  still  hear  the  same  monotonous  story.  Every  American 
cotton  mill  is  spinning  cotton  yarn  by  the  840-yard  standard  of 
this  German  card. 

The  table  at  Fig.  3,  taken  from  the  Leipziger  Monatschrift 
of  October  31,  1902,  illustrates  the  confusion  of  German  standards 
and  how  deeply  the  English  yard-pound  is  embedded  in  German 
textile  literature  and  practice.  It  has  been  compiled  for  daily  use 
by  weavers  in  reckoning  the  amount  of  yarn  required  for  orders. 
It  is  called:  Theoretical  requirements  of  yarn  for  100  metres  of 
cotton  cloth  100  centimetres  wide,  in  English  pounds.  This  is 
bad  enough,  but  worse  is  to  come.  The  yarn  counts  at  the  head 
of  the  columns  are  English  based  on  840  yards  per  pound.  At 
the  left  the  set  is  given  in  threads  per  Vienna  inch.  The 


186 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 


Austrian  weaver  runs  his  eye  down  the  columns  headed  English 
yarn  No.  until  he  reaches  the  line  at  the  left  of  which  is  the  set 
in  threads  per  Vienna  inch,  and  there  he  finds  the  weight  in 
English  pounds  of  the  yarn  he  needs  for  100  metres  of  cloth  100 
centimetres  wide.  And  this  is  also  called  "  using  the  metric 
system." 

The  German  spinners  and  merchants  do  not  find  it  plain  sailing 

Theoretischer  Garnverbrauch  fur  baumwollene  Gewebe  pro  100m  Lange  unct  100  cm  Breite 

in  Pfnnd  engl. 


Engl.  No.  1    10    [   11 

12 

13 

14   j   15   I   16 

17 

18 

19 

.20    )    21 

22 

23   |    24 

Kette-Abfrll 
Schnss-Abfull 

5,-°/o|5,-°/o 
6,l/,°/o6.-°/o 

5,-°/0 
W/o 

m 

gj 

W/olW/o 
S.-'Ajs.-P/o 

V/*°/o 
5,^/0 

8,Vi% 
5,-°/0 

«VT°/« 

SHY* 

3,~<>/03,-<>/0l3,-o/0 

V/AIV/.'/.IW/O 

t;':M: 

Fade^p.  .,.» 

15;83 

14,39 

13,19 

12,18 

11,31 

10,56 

9,90 

9,31 

.8.80 

8,33 

7,92 

7,54 

7,20 

6,88 

6,60 

Kiuweben  •/„ 

3,41 

3,10 

2,84 

2,62 

2,43 

2,27 

2,13 

2,01 

1,89 

1,79 

1,70 

1,62 

1,55 

1,48 

1,42 

9 

17,81 

16,19 

14,84 

13,70 

12,72 

11,87 

11,13 

10,48 

9,90 

9,38 

8,91 

8,48 

8,10 

v7,74 

7,42 

01 

4,31 

3,92 

3,59 

3,32 

3,08 

2,86 

2,70 

2,54 

2,40 

2,27 

2,16 

2,05 

1,96 

1,87 

1,80 

"•10      ' 

19,79 

17,99 

16,49 

15,22 

14,14 

13,19 

12,37 

11,64 

11,- 

10,42 

9,90 

9,43 

9,- 

8,61 

8,26 

°/t> 

,5,32 

4,84 

4,43 

4,09 

3,80 

3,55 

3,33 

3,13 

2,96 

2,80 

2,66 

2,53 

2,42 

2,31 

.2,22 

11 

21,77 

19,79 

18,H 

16,75 

15,55 

14,51 

13,61 

12,81 

12,09 

11,46 

10,89 

10,87 

9,90 

9,47 

9,07 

°/0 

6,44 

5,85 

5,37 

4,95 

4,60 

4,29 

4,03 

3,79 

3,58 

3,39 

3,22, 

3,07 

2,93 

2,80 

2,68 

18 

23,75 

21,59 

19,79 

18,27 

16,96 

15,83 

14,84 

13,97 

13,19 

12,50 

11,88 

11,81 

10,80 

10,33 

9,90 

°/o 

7,66 

6,96 

6,38 

5,89     5,47 

5,11 

4,79 

4,51 

4,26 

4,03 

3,83 

3,65 

3,48 

3,33 

3,19 

13 

25,73 

23,39 

21,44 

19,79 

18,38 

17,15 

16,08 

15,13 

14,29 

13,54 

12,86 

12,25 

11,69 

11,19 

10,72 

°/o 

»,- 

8,18 

7,50 

6,93 

6,43 

6,- 

5,63 

5,29 

-5,— 

4,74 

4,50 

4,29 

4,09 

3,91 

3,75 

14 

27,71 

25,19 

23,09 

21,31 

19,79 

18,47 

17,32 

46,30 

15,39 

14,58 

13,85 

13,20 

.12,59 

12,05 

11,55 

*         % 

10,32 

9,38 

8,60 

7,94 

7,37 

6,88 

6,45 

6,07 

5,73 

5,43 

5,16 

4,92 

.4,69 

4,49 

4,80 

15    x 

29,69" 

26,99 

'24,74 

22,84 

21,21 

19,79 

,18,56 

17,46 

16,49 

15.63 

14,84 

14.14 

I3;49 

12,91 

12,37 

d/o 

n,9? 

10,88 

9,98 

9,21 

8,55 

7,98 

7,48 

7,04 

6,65 

6>1 

5,99 

5,70 

5,44 

5,20 

i  4,99 

16 

31,67 

2&,79 

26,39 

24,36 

22,62 

21,11 

19,79 

18,63 

17,59 

16,67 

15,83 

15,08 

14,39 

13,77 

,13,20 

°/o 

13,61 

12,38 

11,34 

10,48 

9,72 

9,08 

8,49 

8,- 

.7,56 

7,16 

6,81 

6,47 

6,19 

5,92 

5,67 

17 

33,65 

30,59 

28,04 

25,88 

24,03 

22.43 

21,03 

19,79 

18,69 

17,71 

16,82 

16,02 

15,29 

14,63 

14,02 

„              % 

14,78 

13,44 

12,32 

11,38 

10,56 

9,m 

9,24 

8,69 

8,20 

7,78 

7,39 

7,03 

6,73 

6,44 

<M5 

18 

35,63 

32,39 

29,69 

27,40 

25,45 

23,75- 

22,27 

20,96 

19,79 

18,75 

17,81 

16,97 

16,19 

15,49 

14,8.4 

,     % 

17,24 

15,66 

14,36 

13,26 

12,32 

11,49 

10,78 

10,14 

9,58 

9,08 

8,62 

8,20 

7,84 

7,50 

7*18 

19 

37,60 

34,19 

31,34 

28,93 

26,86 

25,07 

'23,50 

22,12 

20,89 

19,79 

18,80 

17,91 

17,09 

16,35 

15,67 

„   .      °/o 

19,21 

17,46 

16,— 

14,78 

13,72 

12,80 

12,- 

11,30 

10,67 

10.11 

9.B1 

9,15 

8,73 

8,35 

8,— 

20 

39,58 

35,99 

32,99 

30,45 

28,27 

26,39 

24,74 

23,28 

21,99 

20,83 

19,79 

18,85 

17,99 

17,21 

16,49 

„         V 

21,28119,34 

17,74 

16,38 

15,20 

14,18 

13,30   12,52 

11,32 

u,'40 

10,61 

10,14 

9,68 

9,25 

8,8ti 

FIG.  3._A  GERMAN  YARN  TABLE. 

in  following  the  dictum  of  the  Paris  Metric  Yarn  Congress 
of  1900,  that  spun  yarn  shall  be  numbered  by  the  skein  of  1,000 
metres  per  kilogramme.  Otto  Holtzhausen,  of  Bayreuth,  Ger- 
many, rises  to  remark  in  the  Leipziger  Monatschrift  that  the  Con- 
gress, while  telling  what  the  trade  should  do,  omitted  to  explain 
how  to  do  it : 

The  Paris  Congress  in  its  second  resolution  provides  that  "  all  kinds  of 
reeled  yarn  shall  be  put  up  in  skeins  of  1,000  metres  each,  divided  deci- 
mally." 

This  is  not  specific  enough  as  to  the  method  of  reeling.  It  is  assumed 
that  10  bindings  of  100  metres  each  will  be  used  in  place  of  7  bindings  of 
840  yards  wound  on  an  English  reel  1£  yards  in  circumference.  Then 
follows  resolution  3: 

"  All  kinds  of  reels  are  permissive  providing  they  give  the  length  of 
1,000  metres." 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE.  187 

The  provision  in  the  second  resolution  for  dividing  the  skein  decimally 
has  remained  nugatory  because  in  reeling  polished  yarn  only  two  divisions, 
and  in  cross  reeling  no  divisions  whatever  are  possible.  Furthermore,  the 
use  of  10  bindings  will  increase  the  cost  of  reeling,  because  it  is  without 
doubt  more  expensive  to  tie  the  skein  in  10  parts  than  in  7  as  at  present. 

Fully  as  convincing  proof  of  the  European  confusion  is  found 
in  a  series  of  articles  now  (July,  1903)  running  in  the  Leipziger 
Monatschrift  fuT  Textil-Industrie  and  entitled,  "  Calculationen 
in  der  Weberei  mit  besonderer  Beruecksichtigung  der  Greiz- 
Geraer  Kleiderstoffbranche,"  by  B.  Ziegenhorn.  In  the  intro- 
duction he  says  : 

Surprising  as  it  may  seem,  the  number  of  ends  is  reckoned  by  so  many 
"  gangs  "  of  40  threads  each,  although  this  does  not  correspond  with  the 
decimal  system.  Likewise  the  picks  are  counted  by  the  Saxon  inch. 

Ibid.: 

The  filling  is  calculated  by  multiplying  the  metric  filling  set  by  the 
metric  width.  For  example: 

59  gang  7£  gang  reed. 
104  metres  wide  in  loom. 
120  metres  wide  finished. 
120  picks  per  Saxon  inch. 

Here  we  have  neither  metric  width  nor  metric  filling  set,  as  both  factors 
are  given  in  Saxon  inches.  The  width  is  equal  to  as  many  units  of  6  Saxon 
inches  as  7*  is  contained  in  59. 


comes  a  table  covering  60  square  inches  of  fine  type  to 
insist  in  the  conversion  of  Saxon  sets  into  metric  and  Saxon 
widths.  The  German  writer  then  gives  a  long  list  of  examples  to 
illustrate  the  method  of  estimating  the  cost  of  various  fabrics. 
In  every  one  of  them  the  width  and  the  warp  set  in  the  loom 
and  the  picks  are  given  in  Saxon  inches. 

In  the  April,  1903,  issue,  a  layout  and  explanation  for  a  Jac- 
quard  crepe  cloth  is  expressed  as  follows  : 

B.  Ziegenhorn: 

Jacquard  crepe. 

Finished  width  100  centimetres. 

55^  threads  per  inch  (Saxon). 

Warp,  59  gang  =  2,360  ends,  2-40,  Cheviot,  English  (840  yards  per 
pound). 

Reed,  8  gang  per  6  Saxon  inches  =  755  dents  per  metre. 

Loom  width,  44.3  Saxon  inches  =  104  £  centimetres. 

Filling,  No.  24  English  (840  yards  per  pound),  .54  threads  per  Saxon 
inch  229  per  10  centimetres. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  English  worsted  reel  is  1  yard  in  diameter: 


188  THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 

7  skeins  of  80  turns  each  =  560  yards.  The  count  indicates  the  number  of 
560  yard  skeins  per  English  pound.  In  the  example  given  f0-  English  •= 
No.  20.  As  one  English  pound  =  453.59  grammes,  and  one  English  yard  = 
.91438  metre,  the  metre  length  is: 

20  x  560  x  .91438  =•  10241  metres  per  English  pound. 
The  length  per  metre  is  then  found  as  follows: 

10241  x  IPX)  _  22577.6  metres  per  kilogramme. 

The  metric  number  is  rounded  to  22$  or  to  22  if  the  calculator  desires 
to  facilitate  the  calculation  still  further. 

The  tendency  toward  round  numbers  in  changing  from  one 
standard  of  yarn  numbering  to  another  is  thus  referred  to  in  the 
Leipziger  Monatschrift  by  Otto  Holtzhausen,  Bayreuth,  Ger- 
many: 

The  Alsatian  yarn  market  in  Miilhouse,  where  the  French  system  is 
used,  furnishes  an  instructive  example  in  rounding  yarn  counts.  The  pro- 
portion of  three  systems,  English,  French  and  metric,  are  thus  expressed: 

French  :  English  : :   .846  :   1 
French  :  metric     : :  1  :   2 
English:   metric     ::   1   :   1.6932 

In  the  Miilhouse  market  the  following  round  equivalents  are  used: 

French  No.  14  =  English  No.  14, 
French  No.  18  =  English  No.  21, 
French  No.  24  =  English  No.  28, 
French  No.  30  =  English  No.  36,  etc. 

Thus  the  ratio  is  changed  to  .8333  :  1  =  5  :  6  in  order  to  facilitate  cal- 
culations, resulting  in  an  increase  of  about  1£  per  cent,  in  the  French 
sizes.  The  same  thing  would  occur  in  expressing  the  metric  equivalents 
of  the  English  counts  the  ratio  1.6932  being  changed  to  If 

The  difficulty  in  changing  textile  standards  is  thus  stated  by 
the  same  writer  in  the  Leipziger  Monatschrift : 

Tke  change  to  the  metric  system  of  numbering  means  a  complete  revo- 
lution of  our  notions  of  the  thickness  and  length  of  yarns,  because  of  the 
variations  in  the  divisions  of  the  English  and  the  metric  scales.  Thus 
English  No.  :  metric  No.  : :  1  :  1.6932.  Consequently  if  we  are  to  retain 
the  English  sizes  now  used  in  our  mills  it  will  be  necessary  to  indicate 
them  by  compound  numbers.  This  difficulty  is  still  further  aggravated 
when  we  consider  the  method  of  packing  skein  yarn.  At  present  we  have 
10  English  pounds  in  one  bundle  and  a  bundle  of  No.  10,  16,  20  or  24  yarn 
contains  respectively  100,  160,  200  or  240  hanks  (of  840  yards  each).  This 
makes  it  possible  to  divide  the  bundle  into  -|.pound  skeins,  as  is  necessary 
for  the  process  of  dyeing,  bleaching  or  fancy  weaving.  This  will  be  im- 


UNIVERSITY 

OF 

THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

possible  with  the  metric  system  if  the  sizes  of  the  yarn  are  not  changed 
because  the  metric  skeins  in  a  5-kilogramme  bundle  of  yarn  of  our  present 
sizes  would  be  as  follows: 

English  No.  10  =  metric  No.  16.6932  =    83.5  metric  skeins. 

English  No.  16  =  metric  No.  27.0912  =  135.5  metric  skeins. 

English  No.  20  =  metric  No.  33.8640  =  169.3  metric  skeins. 

English  No.  24  =  metric  No.  40.6368  =  200.3  metric  skeins. 

From  this  it  is  clear  that  it  will  be  impossible  to  divide  a  bundle  into 
equal  parts  of  say  250  grammes,  each  containing  skeins  of  uniform  size, 
allowing  the  yarn  to  be  put  again  into  bundles  of  the  original  size  after 
bleaching,  dyeing,  or  other  process.  It  is  also  evident  that  the  metric 
numbers  cannot  be  rounded  up  or  down  to  make  such  division  possible  be- 
cause such  rounding  cannot  be  carried  so  far  as  to  cause  a  material 
difference  in  the  size  of  the  yarn. 

In  the  May,  1903,  instalment  of  his  article,  Ziegenhorn  gives 
further  examples  of  crepe  cloths,  showing  the  same  confusion  of 
standards.  At  Fig.  4  is  his  explanation  of  how  to  convert  the 
English  cotton  yarn  numbers  to  the  metric  standard.  The  Eng- 
lish standards  are  underlined  with  broken  lines ,  the  Saxon 

with  dotted  lines Attention  is  called  to  the  frequent  ap- 
pearance of  such  awkward  expressions  as  .914,  768,  and  453.59, 
which  are  the  metric  equivalents  for  the  English  yard,  840  Eng- 
lish yards  and  the  English  pound  respectively.  It  is  useless  to 
try  to  emphasize  the  exasperating  confusion  thus  exhibited. 

Technical  and  trade  literature  of  Continental  Europe  is  replete 
with  evidence  of  this  confusion.  Take  for  example  the  textile 
market  reports  in  the  Wochenberichte  der  Leipziger  Monatschrift 
fur  Textil- Industrie  of  July  8,  1903  : 

Bremen,  July  4th. — All  quotations  for  cotton  given  in  marks 
per  English  pound. 

Zurich,  Switzerland,  July  4th. — All  sizes  of  cotton  yarn  given 
in  the  English  system  (840  yards  per  pound,  while  quotations  are 
mixed,  some  given  per  kilogramme,  others  per  English  pound. 

Miilhouse,  July  4th. — Cotton  yarn  sizes  given  by  both  the 
metric  and  the  English  system. 

Stuttgart,  July  6th. — Cotton  yarn  quoted  by  English  sizes,  per 
kilogramme  and  per  English  pound. 

Milan,  July  4th,  Lyon,  July  3d,  Turin,  July  4th,  Canton, 
China,  July  6th,  Shanghai,  China,  July  6th,  Yokohama,  Japan, 
July  6th. — Silk.  All  sizes  based  on  the  old  denier-aune  standard. 
]STo  mention  of  metric  sizes. 


190  THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

These  conditions  are  unquestioned.  They  may  be  seen  by  any 
one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  the  current  market  reports 
and  textile  journals  of  Continental  Europe. 

German  textile  books  present  a  confused  jumble  of  English, 
local  and  metric  standards. 

Ausfiihrung  17,     72%  Faden  im  ,ZolL 
3s/4  Proc.  Eiriarbeitung. 

(Zeichnung  u.  Karte  18l.) 

Kette:  77  GaDg  =  3080  Faden  48  aa. 

Blatt:  lOJkgangig  4fadig  =  742  Rohre  auf.  1m. 

Arbeitsbreite:.|4.Zpll.=  104  cm. 

Schuss :  j^7p.gebleichten  mercerisirten  Baumwbllzwirn. 

Farbe  u.  Appretur:  Entweder  nur  Waschappretur  fur 

creme,   weiss  oder  zarte  Ballfarben  in  uni  oder 

nur  auf  Wolle. 

106  m  Kette  angelegt,  103  m  Rohwaare. 

Kette:  327  Zahlen_48aa. 

Schuss:  245  Zahlen  JJ£70jgebleicht  merceris.  Baumw. 

Die  Nummer  des  Baumwollswirnes  ist  bei 
der-  Ausfiihrung  der  Calculation  in  tnetrische 
uinzurechnen,  ^^/Ti^^^^englische  Baura- 
woll-Zablen  £hapks}fli  7  fiebfellliasL  a  80 
Faden  a  J^^Yari  ^  0,914  m.~  l"]Eank_  ist 
demnaeh ^^0 "Qjj^  0,914  =  768  Mete?  fang. 
Die  ^n^lJsche^Nummej^  wird  nach  der  Anzahl 
golcher  hanks,  die  zusammen  ein  epglisches 
jPfand,  wiegen,  bestimmt.  Nummer  ._3b_  ist 
sonaclrSS:  768  m  =  26880  m  lang  und  wiegt 
453,59,  rund  454  Gramm;  mitbin  enthalt 
1  kg  davon: 

454 : 1000  =  26880 : 59207  Meter, 

2^0_Baumwollzwirn  ware  also  c.  59  Nummer 

metriseh. 

Dotted  lines   =  Saxon  Standards. 
Broken  lines  =  English  Standards. 

FIG.  4. — A  TYPICAL  GERMAN  TEXTILE  CALCULATION.  \ 

Kutzer,  "  Garn-Nummerirungen,"  1901.    Systems  of  yarn  numbering: 

Linen,  hemp  and  jute:  English  and  Austrian  (the  latter  is  local  and 
unimportant). 

Ramie:  English  and  metric. 

Cotton:  English,  French  and  metric. 

Worsted:   English,  French  and  metric. 

Carded  woollen:  metric,  English,  French,  Austrian,  Berlin  or  Belgian, 
Prussian,  Old  Austrian,  Vienna,  Saxon. 

Waste  silk:  English  and  metric. 

Reeled  Silk:  Old  Lyons,  New  Lyons,  Turin,  Milan,  Piedmont,  metric 
(demi-decigrammes  per  500  metres,  official  but  not  used). 


THE   METRIC   FAILURE.  191 

In  addition  to  these  Kutzer  gives  a  long  list  of  local  systems 
used  for  the  different  textile  materials.  Thirteen  pages  are  filled 
with  elaborate  tables  for  the  conversion  of  these  standards  into 
each  other.  The  work  closes  with  a  list  of  21  ells  and  10  different 
pounds  used  in  Continental  Europe,  giving  the  metric  equivalent 
for  each. 

"  Die  Eigenschaf  ten  der  Gespinste,"  by  Heinrich  Briiggemann, 
Stuttgart,  1897,  is  a  mass  of  complicated  formulas,  tables  and 
explanations  to  simplify  the  use  of  European  textile  weights  and 
measures.  Of  the  forty-three  pages  devoted  to  the  subject  of 
yarn  numbering  and  sizes,  forty  are  occupied  with  the  English 
and  local  European  systems. 

Donat,  "  Methodik  der  Bindungslehre,"  Wien,  Pest,  Leipzig, 
1901,  contains  a  repetition  of  the  confusion  of  which  the  follow- 
ing statement  of  yarn  numbering  is  a  fair  sample : 

Cotton:  English,  French,  metric. 

Linen  and  jute:  English,  Austrian. 

Worsted:   English,  metric. 

Carded  woollen:  English,  Austrian,  Prussian,  Saxon,  metric. 

Silk:  Milan,  Turin,  Lyon,  metric  (not  used). 

On  page  110  is  the  following  list  of  7  ells,  5  pounds  and  4- 
inches  with  their  metric  equivalents : 

UMBECHNUNGS-TABELLE. 

Ellen.  Meter.                                   Pfund.  Kilogramm. 

Leipziger  .566  Englisch  .4536 

Bohmisch  .6  Leipziger  .467 

Berliner  .667  Franzosisch  .4895 

Brabanter  .694  Zoll  .5 

Wiener  .777  Wiener  .56 

Englisch  .9144 

Franzosisch  1.188 

1  Leipziger  inch  =  2.336  cm.  1  cm.  =  .428  Leipziger  inch. 

1  Englischer  inch  =  2.54     cm.  1  cm.  =  2,54  Englischer  inch. 

1  Wiener  inch  =  2.635  cm.  1  cm.  =  .379  Wiener  inch. 

1  Franzosischer  inch  =  2.707  cm.  1  cm.  =  .369  Franzosischer  inch. 

On  page  111  is  a  section  treating  of  twist  in  yarn.  The  turns 
are  given  by  the  English  inch,  no  mention  of  the  metric  system 
being  made. 

"Mechanische  Technologic  der  Weberei,"  by  Hermann  Oelsner, 
Altona,  1902,  is  a  standard  German  treatise  on  weaving,  now  in 
its  eighth  edition.  Like  the  other  books  referred  to,  it  shows 
plainly  the  present  confusion  of  weights  and  measures  in  Europe 


192  THE    METRIC   FAILURE. 

as  well  as  the  general  use  of  the  English  standards.  .Following 
are  a  few  extracts : 

Oelsner,  p.  20: 

The  English  system  of  reeling  is  the  one  most  used.  The  spinners  of 
nearly  all  countries  have  adopted  it.  The  hank  is  840  yards  long.  The 
count  indicates  the  number  of  hanks  of  840  English  yards  (768  metres),  in 
1  English  pound.  1  pound  =  454  grammes.  In  France  and  a  portion  of 
Belgium  cotton  yarn  is  numbered  by  the  French  system,  the  count  indicat- 
ing the  number  of  1,000-metre  hanks  in  1  French  pound  (£  kilo). 

Ibid.,  p.  74: 

Carded  woollen  yarn  is  reeled  and  numbered  in  a  great  many  different 
ways,  which  appear  to  have  been  the  result  of  chance  rather  than  of  any 
practical  requirements.  Following  are  the  most  important: 

Prussian,  2,200  Berlin  ells  and  1  Berlin  pound. 
Cockerill,  2,240  Berlin  ells  and  1  French  pound. 
Saxon,  800  Leipzig  ells  and  1  French  pound. 
Saxon,  1,200  Leipzig  ells  and  1  French  pound. 
Vienna,  1,760  Vienna  ells  and  1  Vienna  pound. 
Bohemia,  800  Leipzig  ells  and  1  English  pound. 
English,  560  English  yards  and  1  English  pound. 
Elbceuf,   3,600  metres  and  1  French  pound. 
Sedan,  1,256  Paris  ells  and  1  Paris  pound. 

Ibid.,  p.  83: 

In  Germany  and  Austria  worsted  yarn  is  reeled  and  numbered  to  corre- 
spond with  the  English  system.  In  France,  Belgium,  Switzerland  and  Italy 
the  hank  is  600  aunes  in  length,  the  count  indicating  the  hanks  per  ^  kilo. 

Ibid.,  p.  93: 

The  size  counts  of  silk  indicate  the  weight  in  deniers  of  9,600  aunes. 

On  page  107  of  Oelsner ?s  work  is  a  table  showing  the  following 
comparisons  of  yarn  numbering :  English,  840  yards  per  pound ; 
French,  1,000  metres  per  1  French  pound  (J  kilo);  English,  560 
.yards  per  pound;  Old  French,  600  aunes  (720  metres)  per  French 
pound ;  Prussian,  2,200  Berlin  ells  per  French  pound ;  Saxon,  800 
Leipzig  ells  per  French  pound. 

Following  this  table  is  a  long  section  on  general  calculations 
which  are  involved  in  an  indescribable  mixture  of  local,  English 
and  metric  standards  of  length  and  weight.  Chaos  prevails 
throughout  the  entire  section.  There  is  a  long  series  of  compara- 
tive tables  introduced  to  simplify  the  conversion  of  one  standard 
to  another.  Following  are  a  few  samples  of  the  confusion  ex- 
liibited  in  this  part  of  what  is  probably  the  best  and  most  practical 
work  on  weaving  in  the  German  language : 

Page  108 :    The    standards    of    length    for    nineteen  different 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  193 

systems,  stated  in  the  following  units:   Leipzig  ell,  Berlin  ell, 
Vienna  ell,  English  yard,  metre. 

Page  110:  The  circumference  of  eleven  different  reels.  Six 
are 'given  in  English  yards,  two  in  metres,  the  other  three  in  local 
ells. 

Page  119 :  In  Prussian  mills  the  set  of  fabrics  is  based  on  the 
number  of  gangs  of  40  threads  each  in  a  quarter,  Berlin  ell  (6f 
Prussian  inches). 

Page  121 :  The  following  table  gives  the  threads  per  centi- 
metre and  per  French  inch  for  the  Crefeld  system  of  indicating 
the  set.  The  system  is  based  on  38§  French  inches  =  104.8 
cubic  metres  =  41J  English  inches.  (This  table  is  too  long  to 
be  inserted  here.  Following  are  a  few  sample  fractions  taken 
from  it:  llflt;  Slf,;  12^;  88H-) 

In  Switzerland  and  France  the  system  is  based  on  the  number 
of  threads  and  dents  per  French  inch  or  per  cm. 

Page  124:  An  elaborate  table  based  on  the  Leipzig  inch  and 
showing  the  effect  of  contraction  on  the  set. 

Page  130:  The  metric  equivalents  of  the  following  standards 
of  length : 

Prussian  ell,  Vienna  ell, 

Saxon  ell,  English  yard, 

Brabant  ell,  Danish  ell, 

Bavarian  ell,  Swedish  ell, 

Wurtemberg  ell,  Kussian  archin. 

Baden  ell, 

The  same  equivalents  in  round  numbers. 

Pages  132,  133,  134,  135 :  These  four  pages  and  part  of  page 
136  are  filled  with  tables  reducing  the  metre  to  Berlin,  Leipzig 
and  English  ells  (yards),  Berlin,  Leipzig  and  English  ells  to 
metres,  centimetres  to  Leipzig,  Rhenish  and  English  inches. 

Page  137 :  Tables  for  reduction  of  sets  by  Leipzig  standard  (6 
Leipzig  inches)  to  threads  per  Leipzig  inch,  per  140  centimetres, 
per  centimetre,  per  Rhenish  inch  and  per  English  inch.  All  this 
is  German  practice  in  the  textile  industry  to-day.  The  Saxon 
inch,  English  yard,  French  metre,  English  pound  and  French  kilo- 
gramme are  involved  in  hopeless  confusion.  This  exhibit,  bad  as 
it  is,  shows  only  the  bare  formulas.  The  real  difficulty  begins 
when  an  attempt  is  made  to  apply  them,  to  make  the  calculations 
that  are  constantly  arising  in  daily  mill  work.  It  should  not  be 
forgotten  that  the  introduction  of  metric  standards  into  American 


194  THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

textile  industry,  where  the  English  yard,  inch,  pound  and  ounce 
now  reign,  means  a  condition  but  little  better  than  this  Saxun- 
English-metric  mix-up. 

A  hand-book  of  cotton  spinning,  Guia  Practic  pera  la  Filatura 
del  Goto,  by  Emili  Eiera,  Barcelona,  1901,  shows  that  a  similar 
confusion  exists  in  Spain.  As  the  machinery  used  is  English  the 
illustrations  for  the  book  have  been  taken  from  English  draw- 
ings, the  English  words  not  having  been  changed.  The  Cata- 
lonian  system  of  numbering  yarn  is  thus  described : 

Riera,  p.  70:  The  Catalonian  system  is  based  on  a  weight  of  l-^-  lliures 
and  a  hank  of  500  canes.  The  count  indicates  the  number  of  hanks  in 
this  weight. 

Evidently  this  system  of  counts  was  derived  from  the  English, 
for  there  is  a  difference  of  only  4J  per  cent,  between  them.  Then 
follows  an  explanation  of  a  Spanish  method  based  on  a  fixed 
length  and  the  weight  in  quarter  ounces.  Then  comes  the  Eng- 
lish followed  by  the  French  system,  but  the  metric  standard  is 
not  mentioned.  There  are  several  tables  showing  the  equivalents 
by  the  Catalonian,  English  and  French  systems  of  numbering 
yarn,  with  the  weight  of  1,000  metres,  but  no  mention  of  the 
metric  count.  The  book  exhibits  a  deplorable  confusion  of  Span- 
ish, English  and  metric  weights  and  measures,  to  which  lack  of 
space  prevents  extended  reference. 

The  evidence  which  is  here  presented  proves  beyond  a  shadow 
of  doubt  that  as  far  as  textile  weights  and  measures  on  the  Con- 
tinent are  concerned  the  attempt  begun  110  years  ago  to  make 
them  metric  has  been  a  failure,  the  small  measure  of  success 
attained  having  served  only  to  increase  the  disorder.  It  demon- 
strates that  changing  established  size  numbers  for  yarn  is  prac- 
tically impossible,  that  the  attempt  to  change  them  in  Europe  has 
simply  caused  a  conversion  of  the  standards  on  which  they  are 
based  from  old  to  metric  units,  causing  a  condition  worse  than  the 
first.  The  same  result  would  surely  follow  a  similar  attempt  to 
change  the  American  system  of  numbering  yarn. 

Assuming  that  American  weights  and  measures  are  changed  to 
the  metric  system,  let  us  trace  the  resulting  changes  in  yarn  num- 
bering as  indicated  by  the  experience  of  Europe.  During  the 
first  stage  of  the  "  transition  "  period  the  yard  and  pound,  kilo- 
gramme and  metre  would  be  in  use,  and  it  would  be  necessary  to 
preserve  the  metric  equivalents  of  the  yard  and  the  pound;  the 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  195 

cotton,  woolen,  worsted  and  linen  standards  being  expressed  as 
follows  : 

Cotton,  now  840  yards  per  pound;  then  768.09  metres  per 
-ir.o.59  grammes. 

Worsted,  now  560  yards  per  pound;  then  512.05  metres  per 
g 


Woollen,  now  1,600  yards  per  pound;  then  1,463.04  metres  per 
kilogramme.  ^3'  3<  J"*?   &l/\/c\s*^s^+vJti>&  • 

Linen,  now  300  yards'  per  pound;  then  274.31  metres  per  kilo- 


The  next  period  would  come  after  the  yard  and  pound1  had 
disappeared;  the  cotton,  woollen,  worsted  and  linen,  standards 
could  then  be  based  on  the  kilogramme  as  follows  : 

Cotton  skeins  of  1,693.63  metres  per  kilogramme. 

Worsted  skeins  of  1,129.09  metres  per  kilogramme. 

Woollen  skeins  of  3,226  metres  per  kilogramme. 

Linen  skeins  of  604.85  metres  per  kilogramme. 

A  comparison  of  the  awkward  expressions  of  either  the  first  or 
the  second  stages  with  our  present  standards  of  840,  560,  1,600 
and  300  yards  per  ounce,  shows  how  much  better  off  we  are  now 
than  we  would  be  then. 

The  first  two  stages  of  this  process  of  evolution  can  now  be 
found  in  France.  In  Elboauf  the  numbering  of  carded  yarn  is 
based  on  a  fixed  weight  of  40  sous  (an  old  unit  of  weight)  or  its 
equivalent,  500  grammes,  and  a  variable  length  expressed  in  a 
skein  of  3,600  metres.  This  is  the  first  stage.  Passing  to  Rou- 
baix,  for  example,  we  find  the  evolution  in  the  second  stage,  the 
fixed  weight  being  the  kilogramme  and  the  variable  length  ex- 
pressed in  skeins  of  714  metres. 

The  third  stage  in  France  is  the  use  of  the  system  based  on  the 
1,  000-metre  skein  and  the  kilogramme.  The  last  named  is  the  only 
one  that  is  metric,  and  has  been  introduced  to  some  extent  in 
the  woollen  industry,  but  in  the  other  branches  it  is  used  so  little 
as  to  hardly  warrant  the  statement  that  the  last  stage  has  begun. 

Thus  the  experience  of  Europe  teaches  us  that  the  metric 
system  will  first  give  us  a  768.  09-metre,  453.  59-gramme  cotton  yarn 
system  for  centuries,  with  equally  absurd  bases  for  each  of  the 
other  systems.  If  we  escape  from  them  we  shall  have  another 
era  with  the  absurdities  reduced  one-half;  in  the  meantime,  end- 
less confusion. 

The  process  of  conversion  by  which  yarn  counts  remain  un- 


196 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 


changed  has  left  Continental  Europe  with  practically  all  the 
systems  of  numbering  yarn  that  have  ever  been  used  there  to  any 
considerable  extent.  This  chaotic  state  of  yarn  numbering  is 
shown  in  tabular  and  graphic  form  in  another  chapter  where  the 
two  systems,  English  and  metric,  are  compared. 

The  evidence  presented  by  Europe  proves  that  a  change  of 
textile  standards  is  a  task  of  such  difficulty  as  to  be  practically 
impossible,  even  when  backed  by  all  the  might  of  arbitrary  and 
despotic  power,  and  confirms  beyond  a  doubt  the  belief  that  an  at- 
tempt to  change  textile  standards  in  a  free  country  like  our  own 
is  simply  impossible,  and  that  partial  success  will  create  confusion 
instead  of  contributing  to  uniformity. 

In  this  matter  of  weights  and  measures  the  preferences  and  opin- 
ions of  employers  do  not  control.  There  is  probably  not  one  textile 
manufacturer  in  France,  Germany,  Austria,  Italy  and  Spain,  who 
does  not  ardently  favor  the  use  of  the  metric  system.  ~No  one 
should  deceive  himself  by  thinking  that  this  unanimity  is  due  to 
the  merits  of  the  metric  system.  They  favor  it  because  it  offers 
the  only  way  of  escape  from  the  chaos  of  local  standards  in  which 
Europe  is  involved.  They  are,  however,  powerless  to  bring  this 
about,  owing  among  many  other  things,  to  the  familiarity  of  their 
employes  with  the  old  units.  Textile  weights  and  measures  are 
regulated  by  the  millions  who  create  wealth  in  the  mill,  not  by 
the  hundreds  who  count  that  wealth  in  the  counting-house. 

Let  us  now  compare  the  system  we  have  with  the  metric  system 
which  we  are  asked  to  accept  in  its  place.  The  evidence  shows 
that  such  a  change  is  impossible  and  therefore  a  comparison  of 
the  two  systems  is  not  of  any  practical  value,  except  as  it  may 
furnish  cumulative  proof  of  the  folly  of  attempting  to  change 
American  textile  standards. 


THE  ENGLISH  AND  THE  METKIC  SYSTEM  COMPARED. 

Look  here  upon  this  picture,  and  on  this.  —  Hamlet. 

The  English  textile  standards  are  six  in  number: 
yard, 
inch, 
pound, 
ounce, 
dram, 
grain. 


The  metric  textile  standards  are  eiam  in  number: 
metre,    / 
decimetre, 
centimetre, 


kilogramme, 
gramme, 
decigramme, 
centigramme. 

The  first  thing  to  attract  attention  is  the  individuality  of  the 
English  names.  The  words  yard,  inch,  pound,  ounce,  dram  and 
grain  are  short,  crisp  expressions,  and  each  conveys  a  distinct 
impression  to  both  the  eye  and  the  ear.  Each  stands  forth  as  the 
unique  representative  of  a  particular  measure  of  weight  or  length. 

The  metric  words,  metre,  decimetre,  centimetre,  millimetre, 
kilogramme,  gramme,  decigramme  and  centigramme  are  long,  cum- 
bersome and  very  much  alike.  The  name  of  each  metric  unit  of 
weight  sounds  like  the  name  of  every  other  metric  unit  of  weight  ; 
the  name  of  each  metric  unit  of  length  sounds  very  like  that  of 
every  other  metric  unit  of  length.  The  English  units  have  English 
names  which  are  a  part  of  the  English  language.  The  metric 
units  with  their  Greek  and  Latin  prefixes  and  wearisome  suffixes 
have  a  strange,  monotonous  sound  and  appearance.  It  is  difficult 
to  connect  the  idea  with  the  metric  word.  As  some  one  has  well 


198  THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

I 

said:  The  metric  units  resemble  a  party  of  foreigners  in  uniform; 
they  all  look  alike  and  jabber  alike. 

As  far  as  nomenclature  is  concerned  the  English  system  is 
decidedly  superior. 

It  is  the  dimensions  of  the  units,  however,  that  are  most  im- 
portant. The  yard  is  36  inches  long,  the  metre  39f  inches.  This 
difference  is  less  than  10  per  cent,  of  the  yard,  and  not  enough  to 
affect  the  value  of  either  as  a  textile  standard. 

The  exclusively  decimal  divisions  of  the  metre  are.  however, 
decidedly  objectionable.  The  mind  naturally  divides  the  yard 
by  successive  halving.  The  first  division  is  into  halves;  then 
come  J  and  -J,  f ,  f,  J  and  £ .  This  is  the  general  practice  in 
handling  textiles. 

One-quarter  is  the  smallest  fraction  of  a  yard  used  in  measur- 
ing cloth  from  the  loom.  One-eighth  is  the  smallest  used  for  fin- 
ished goods.  By  the  metric  system  \  becomes  .25,  while  -J  is 
.125.  These  long,  cumbersome  decimals  will  not  answer  for  ex- 
pressing fractions  of  the  yard.  The  purchaser  of  cloth  by  retail 
could  never  be  induced  to  call  for  A  of  a  yard  when  she  wanted 
^,  or  for  AVo"  when  she  wanted  J-. 

The  other  English  textile  standard  of  length  is  the  inch.  For 
the  various  uses  to  which  the  inch  is  put  the  metric  decimetre, 
centimetre  and  millimetre  are  used. 

The  English  inch  is  unquestionably  the  best  standard  for 
determining  the  set  (density  of  threads)  of  textile  fabrics  in  cloth 
analysis.  It  is  not  so  long  as  to  make  the  counting  of  the  threads  too 
laborious.  It  is  not  so  short  as  to  cause  serious  error  by  discarding 
a  fraction  of  a  thread.  For  example,  27  warp  threads  per  inch  are 
equivalent  to  6f  per  quarter  inch.  The  omission  of  the  fraction,  J, 
from  the  number  of  threads  per  quarter  inch  means  a  difference 
of  168  threads  in  the  warp  for  goods  56  inches  wide,  while  the 
omission  of  a  like  fraction  from  the  number  of  threads  per  inch 
means  a  difference  of  but  42  threads  in  the  same  width.  Every 
practical  textile  manufacturer  wrill  recognize  how  important  the 
difference^  126  ends,  is  in  a  1,512  end  warp. 

For  like  reasons  a  distance  approximating  an  inch  is  the  best 
for  gauging  the  set  of  the  filling  (picks).  The  superiority  of  the 
English  inch  for  this  purpose  is  attested  by  the  fact  that  the 
French  weavers,  over  one  hundred  years  after  the  birth  of  the 
metric  system,  are  still  using  the  inch  for  counting  picks. 

Turning  to  the  metric  system  we  have  the  centimetre  (T\  inch) 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  199 

and  the  decimetre  (4  inches)  for  gauging  the  set  of  cloths.  The 
centimetre  is  too  short,  because  the  omission  of  one  thread  or  even 
a  part  of  a  thread  from  the  calculations  makes  a  difference  which 
might  seriously  affect  the  structure  of  the  fabric.  Take,  for 
example,  a  32-ounce  Irish  frieze  cloth  made  140  centimetres 
wide ;  10  threads  per  centimetre  would  be  equal  to  1,400  threads 
in  the  warp.  An  omission  of  one  thread  in  the  count  is  easily 
made  in  cloth  analysis  and  would  mean  a  difference  of  10  per 
cent,  of  140  threads,  which  with  the  ordinary  size  of  frieze  yarn 
would  make  a  difference  of  lyV  ounces  per  yard  in  the  warp 
alone.  The  same  error  might  easily  creep  into  the  filling,  im- 
pairing both  the  appearance  and  the  weight  of  the  goods. 

That  this  is  a  practical  difficulty  with  the  metric  system  is 
shown  by  the  following  extract  from  "  Methodik  der  BindungS: 
lehre  und  Decomposition  fur  Schaftweberei,"  a  standard  German 
work  on  weaving  by  Franz  Donat,  Professor  at  the  Royal  Weav- 
ing School  at  Reichenberg: 

'  The  threads  in  warp  and  filling  are  gauged  by  the  number  per  deci- 
metre. The  use  of  the  decimetre  is  unsafe  (unsicher),  because  from  one- 
half  to  one  thread  (even  more  in  silk  goods),  may  easily  be  overlooked." 

Weavers  at  the  loom  must  frequently  count  the  picks  in  the 
cloth  to  make  sure  that  the  fabric  is  being  woven  with  the  right 
number  of  filling  threads  per  inch.  This  must  be  done  in  the 
midst  of  the  confusion  and  din  of  the  weave  room  while  the  loom 
is  running,  and  while  counting  the  picks  the  weaver  must  watch 
the  work  and  machines  to  see  that  nothing  goes  wrong.  In  ordi- 
nary woollen  fabrics  the  picks  often  run  as  high  as  sixty  per  inch. 
To  count  these  sixty  threads  in  one  inch  correctly  under  such 
conditions  requires  the  closest  attention,  and  errors  are  then  very 
likely  to  occur  owing  to  interruptions  incident  to  the  operation  of 
weaving.  To  count  correctly  four  times  that  number,  or  240 
per  decimetre  (4  inches)  under  the  same  conditions  would  be  a 
physical  and  mental  impossibility. 

For  expressing  the  woven  and  finished  widths  of  textile  fabrics 
the  English  system  offers  the  inch  and  its  subdivisions;  the 
metric  system,  the  centimetre  or  the  millimetre.  Wide  cloths 
are  woven  and  sold  in  the  United  States  as  so  many  even  inches 
wide.  For  example,  we  have  36,  40,  44,  48,  50  or  56  inch  goods. 
These  expressions  of  width  (consisting  of  but  two  figures)  are 
easily  written  or  spoken  and  are  constantly  used,  not  only  by  the 
manufacturers  but  also  by  the  commission  merchants,  jobbers, 


200  THE    METKIC    FAILURE. 

retailers,  tailors,  and  that  large  part  of  our  population  who  buy 
dress  goods,  and  all  other  kinds  of  textile  fabrics  at  the  retail 
counters  of  our  stores. 

The  centimetre  is  too  short  for  the  finished  widths  of  wide 
fabrics.  Inches  express  such  widths  as  closely  as  is  necessary. 

By  the  metric  system  the  finished  goods  are  expressed  in  centi- 
metres. This  necessitates  the  use  of  three  figures  for  all  goods 
40  inches  or  more  in  width.  A  comparison  of  the  following  ex- 
pressions both  when  written  and  spoken  shows  how  much  more 
concise  and  expressive  are  the  English  terms : 

English.  Metric. 

36  inches.  90  centimetres. 

40  inches.  100  centimetres. 

44  inches.  110  centimetres. 

56  inches.  140  centimetres. 

Frequently  these  widths  are  given  in  quarter-yards,  thus,  J-,  }r 
f >  i>  if  i?  etc.  Turning  to  ribbons  and  tape,  European  practice 
proves  that  the  metric  units  are  unsuited  even  for  very  narrow 
widths.  The  French  inch  divided  into  12  lines,  the  line  being 
again  divided  into  quarters,  is  still  used  there  for  the  width  of 
narrow  fabrics.  Frowein,  "  Kalkulator  f iir  Textile  Branche," 
p.  91,  thus  states  the  difficulty  with  the  metric  units : 

The  different  widths  of  tape  and  ribbon  often  vary  by  £  line.  It  is- 
greatly  to  be  regretted  that,  the  millimetre  being  too  long  for  the  measure- 
ment, we  find  here  an  obstacle  to  using  the  millimetre  for  expressing 
widths  and  thus  bringing  it  into  use  in  commerce. 

None  of  the  successive  decimal  divisions  of  the  metre  are 
suited  for  either  the  commercial  or  manufacturing  widths  of 
textile  fabrics.  For  the  finished  widths  of  the  wide  goods  the 
decimetre  is  too  long,  the  centimetre  too  short.  For  narrow 
fabrics  the  millimetre  in  turn  is  too  long  and  its  decimal  divisions 
too  short.  For  all  of  these  widths  the  inch,  divided  to  suit  the 
particular  case,  answers  every  purpose  perfectly.  Could  there 
be  any  stronger  confirmation  of  the  following  extract  from  John 
Quincy  Adams'  report? 

Thus,  then,  it  has  been  proved,  by  the  test  of  experience,  that  the  prin- 
ciple of  decimal  divisions  can  be  applied  only  with  many  qualifications  to 
any  general  system  of  metrology;  that  its  natural  application  is  only  to- 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE.  201 

numbers;    and   that  time,   space  gravity  and  extension   inflexibly   reject 
its  sway. 

Xext  compare  the  English  and  metric  systems  for  expressing 
the  width  of  wide  goods  in  process  of  manufacture.  Cloth  is 
made  wider  in  the  loom  than  when  finished,  to  allow  for  the 
shrinkage  in  finishing,  the  difference  varying  widely  in  different 
fabrics.  This  loom  width  must  be  adjusted  with  extreme  care 
that  not  only  the  final  width,  but  also  the  weight,  "  handle  "  and 
finish  of  the  goods  may  be  right. 

An  occurrence  at  the  Hecla  Mills,  Uxbridge,  Mass.,  in  1887, 
will  illustrate  this  point.  The  mill  was  started  on  fabrics  for 
which  the  samples  had  been  made  in  another  mill.  In  sending 
the  drafts  to  the  Hecla,  the  designer  at  the  other  mill  marked 
the  loom  width  Scinches  wider  than  it  should  have  been.  Before 
the  error  was  discovered  the  Hecla  mill  was  filled  with  tender 
and  unmerchantable  goods,  a  large  part  of  which  was  sold  as 
u  seconds,"  most  of  the  remainder  at  a  heavy  loss.  This  is  an 
extreme  case  but  shows  the  necessity  of  a  correct  adjustment  of 
the  loom  or  manufacturing  width.  A  difference  of  f  of  an  inch 
in  the  width  at  the  loom  or  fulling  mill  may  mean  the  success  or 
failure  of  a  fulled  worsted  or  woollen  fabric. 

The  American  practice  is  to  express  the  loom  width  in  inches 
and  tenths  of  an  inch;  thus  68.1  inches.  This  adjustment  to  -fa  of 
an  inch  is  as  fine  as  is  required,  the  expression  requiring  but 
three  figures.  The  metric  practice  is  to  express  the  loom  width 
in  centimetres  or  millimetres.  The  centimetre  (rVinch)  is  four 
times  as  long  as  one-tenth  of  an  inch,  and  thus  the  loom  width  can 
be  adjusted  to  the  tenth  of  an  inch  with  four  times  the  degree  of 
accuracy  that  is  possible  with  the  use  of  the  centimetre. 

The  objection  to  the  use  of  the  millimetre  is  that  it  necessitates 
the  use  of  four  figures  to  express  the  width  of  wide  cloths. 

From  these  considerations  the  conclusion  is  obvious  that  as  a 
practical  standard  for  the  manufacturing  width  of  wide  cloths, 
the  English  inch  divided  into  tenths  is  superior  to  the  metric 
centimetre  or  millimetre. 

The  square  yard  and  square  metre  are  used  to  some  extent  in 
trade  and  commerce;  as  a  standard  by  which  to  assess  customs 
duties,  for  example.  For  such  purposes  there  is  nothing  to 
choose  between  the  yard  and  the  metre.  The  difference  in  the 
size  of  these  two  units  does  not  affect  the  utility  of  either.  Meas- 
ures of  area  in  textile  manufacturing  are  employed  chiefly  in  the 


202  THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 

analysis  of  fabrics,  the  square  inch  being  the  English,  the  square 
centimetre  or  decimetre  the  metric  standard. 

Cloth  analysis  is  an  important  operation  of  the  textile  manu- 
facturer. Much  depends  upon  the  degree  of  accuracy  with  which 
the  structure  of  a  fabric  is  determined,  and  a  slight  error  may 
cause  much  loss  to  a  mill  by  reason  of  the  goods  coming  out  differ- 
ent from  the  sample  they  were  intended  to  duplicate.  The  two 
important  factors  to  be  determined  from  measures  of  area  are 
the  weight  per  yard  or  metre,  and  the  size  of  the  yarn.  Both 
are  calculated  from  the  weight  of  a  sample  of  small  area,  and 
upon  the  size  of  this  area  depends  the  accuracy  of  the  analysis. 
The  effect  of  an  error  on  the  resulting  fabric  diminishes  as  the 
area  of  the  sample  enlarges  and  increases  as  the  size  of  the  sample 
grows  smaller.  The  analysis  of  cloth  involves  much  tedious 
labor  in  ravelling  and  counting  threads,  which  increases  with  the 
size  of  the  sample.  Experience  has  shown  that  for  analyzing 
most  cloths,  particularly  union  fabrics  composed  of  two  or  more 
kinds  of  yarn,  the  best  size  is  that  approximating  four  square 
inches.  It  is  not  so  large  as  to  make  the  ravelling  and  counting 
of  the  threads  unnecessarily  laborious,  nor  so  small  as  to  make  a 
serious  defect  in  the  cloth  result  from  a  slight  error.  The  size 
of  the  yarn  in  a  sample  can  be  determined  by  a  simple  division  of 
the  threads  per  inch  by  the  weight,  if  the  sample  is  of  a  certain 
area.  This  area  must  be  such  that  each  thread  in  the  set  of  the 
fabric  will  be  equal  to  the  length  of  the  skein  on  which  the  size 
number  is  based.  Now  let  us  see  what  such  an  area  is  by  the 
English  and  also  by  the  metric  system. 

The  set  of  fabrics  is  expressed  in  threads  per  English  inch. 
The  English  system  of  yarn  numbering  based  on  840  yards  per 
pound,  or  4.32  inches  per  grain,  is  used  as  the  basis  for  cloth 
analysis.  It  is  plain  that  for  each  thread  per  inch  there  will  be 
4.32  inches  of  yarn  in  an  area  of  4.32  square  inches.  The  yarn 
count  can  then  be  calculated  by  a  simple  division  of  the  threads 
per  inch  by  the  grains  in  the  weight  of  the  area  which  has  been 
found  to  be  the  best  for  the  analysis. 

The  metric  system  of  yarn  numbering  is  based  on  1,000  metres 
per  kilogramme,  1  decimetre  per  decigramme,  or  1  centimetre  per 
centigramme.  We  can  thus  adjust  the  size  of  our  sample  to  suit 
either  the  decigramme  or  centigramme  basis.  By  the  former  the 
area  is  one  square  decimetre  (15^  inches);  by  the  latter  one  square 
centimetre  (^  square  inch).  To  meet  the  requirements  of  the 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  203 

simplest  calculation  there  is  no  unit  of  area  between  the  square 
centimetre  (|  square  inch),  which  is  one-sixth  the  size  of  a  two- 
cent  postage  stamp,  and  the  square  decimetre  (15^  inches),  which 
is  equal  in  area  to  an  ordinary  business  envelope.  The  square 
centimetre  is  out  of  the  question  because  it  is  so  small;  the 
square  decimetre  is  equally  unavailable  because  it  is  so  large. 
We.  cannot  get  around  the  difficulty  by  making  the  area  10  square 
decimetres,  for  this  is  but  1^  square  inches,  or  less  than  one-half 
the  area  required  (4-  square  inches). 

The  only  course  open  with  the  metric  system  is  to  make  the 
area  approximately  4  square  inches,  say  5  centimetres  square, 
complicating  the  calculation  and  involving  the  correct  position  of 


FIG.  5. — THE  SAMPLE  ANALYZED. 

the  decimal  point  in  doubt.  Much  the  greater  part  of  the  cal- 
culations for  cloth  analysis  are  those  to  determine  the  size  of  the 
yarn,  and  for  these  we  find  the  English  units  of  area  much 
superior.  The  weight  of  cloths  is  expressed  by  the  English 
system  by  ounces  per  yard  or  by  yards  per  pound,  by  the  metric 
system  by  grammes  per  metre. 

By  the  metric  system  the  weight  per  metre  of  cloth  is  cal- 
culated from  the  area  (25  square  centimetres)  by  multiplying  the 
weight  of  the  sample  by  the  width  of  the  cloth  in  centimetres 
and  dividing  by  the  area  of  the  sample.  By  the  English  system 
each  grain  of  the  weight  of  the  sample  is  equivalent  to  one  ounce 
per  yard  52  J  inches,  wide,  and  thus  by  multiplying  the  w.eiglri  of 
the  sample  in  jp*™"^  by  the  width  of  the  cloth  in  oonibimotroa 
and  dividing  by  52£,  the  ounces  per  running  yard  are  found. 
The  process  in  each  case  is  one  of  simple  proportion.  The  yards 
per  pound  or  metres  per  kilogramme  are  calculated  by  a  similar 
process. 


204  THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 

We  will  illustrate  these  calculations  by  the  analysis  of  two 
samples  of  the  union  fabric  shown  at  Fig.  5,  one  by  the  English, 
the  other  by  the  metric  system.  This  cloth  is  an  English  cotton 
and  worsted  fabric  known  in  the  market  as  the  "  Varsity  " 
vesting.  A  sample  1  finches  by  2^ inches  and  another  5  centi- 
metres by  5  centimetres  are  cut  for  the  English  and  metric 
analyses  respectively.  Each  piece  is  weighed,  and  enough  warp 
and  filling  is  then  ravelled  to  enable  the  projecting  threads  to  be 
counted  in  one  inch  of  the  English  and  in  5  centimetres  of  the 
metric  sample.  After  the  warp  and  filling  threads  are  thus 
counted,  the  remainder  of  the  sample  is  ravelled  and  each  kind  of 
yarn  separated  and  weighed.  The  results  of  these  operations  are 
as  follows : 

English  sample : 

Warp. — Worsted,  4.2  grains,  62  threads  per  inch. 

Cotton,  1.8  grains,  31  threads  per  inch. 
Filling. — Cotton,  7  grains,  130  threads  per  inch. 
Total,  13  grains. 

Metric  sample: 

Warp. — Worsted,  25  centigrammes,  124  threads  per  5  centi- 
metres. 

Cotton,    11    centigrammes,    62    threads   per    5    centi- 
metres. 

Filling. — Cotton,  41  centigrammes,  255  threads  per  5  centi- 
metres. 
Total,  77  centigrammes. 

Upon  weighing  a  sample,  then  extracting  the  wool  with  caustic 
alkali  and  weighing  the  residue  when  dry,  we  find  the  cotton  to 
be  66  per  cent,  of  the  original  weight.  This  result  is  obtained  by 
the  same  calculation  with  either  the  English  or  the  metric  system 
so  that  no  comparison  need  be  made  here. 

The  sizes  and  sets  of  the  yarn  and  the  weight  of  the  goods  are 
then  calculated,  as  shown  at  Figs.  6  to  13  with  the  following 
result : 

Worsted  Warp. — English,  Fig.  6,  15  figures. 

— Metric,  Fig.  7,  27  figures. 
Cotton  Warp. — English,  Fig.  8,  15  figures. 

Metric,  Fig.  9,  23  figures. 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 


205 


Cotton  Filling. — English,  Fig.  10,  16  figures. 
Metric,  Fig.   11,  25  figures. 
Weight  of  cloth. — English,  Fig.  12,  38  figures. 
Metric,  Fig.  13,  22  figures. 

A  summary  shows  that  84  figures  have  been  used  in  the  En- 
glish and  97  in  the  metric  calculations. 

There  remain  to  be  determined  the  nature  and  quality  of  the 


FIG.  6.  FIG.  7. 

WORSTED  WARP. 


FIG.  8.  FIG.  9. 

COTTON  WARP. 


FIG.  10.  FIG.  11.  FIG.  12.  FIG.  13. 

COTTON  FILLING.  WEIGHT. 

ENGLISH  AND  METRIC  CALCULATIONS  FOR  CLOTH  ANALYSIS. 

raw  material,  probable  processes  of  manufacture,  twist  in  the 
yarn,  weave  and  finish  of  the  goods.  For  this  work  it  is  essen- 
tial that  the  analyzer  should  have  good  judgment  and  practical 
experience,  which,  although  not  affected  by  either  the  English  or 
the  metric  system,  can  easily  become  impaired  when  the  mind  is 
clouded  by  the  joint  use  of  two  standards  of  weight  and  measure. 

We  thus  find  that  for  cloth  analysis  the  English  units  of  area 
are  superior  to  the  metric  units,  because  the  former  fulfil  the 
requirements  of  exactitude  in  the  work  and  simplicity  in  the 
calculations. 

Let  us  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  units  of  weight.  We  have 
the  metric  kilogramme  to  answer  the  purposes  of  the  English 
pound.  I  can  find  no  reason  for  preferring  one  to  the  other  in 


206  THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 

textile  work.  It  remains  a  fact,  however,  that  the  French  textile 
industry  has  for  110  years  successfully  resisted  all  attempts  to 
displace  the  French  pound,  which  approximates  the  English 
pound,  being  only  5  per  cent,  heavier,  and  to-day  the  whole  French 
cotton  industry  use  this  pound  as  a  basis  for  yarn  sizes. 

The  weight  of  cloth  is  expressed  by  ounces  per  yard  and  yards 
per  pound,  or  by  grammes  per  metre  and  metres  per  kilogramme. 
In  America  the  weight  of  cloth  sold  by  the  ounces  per  yard  is 
generally  expressed  in  even  units,  rarely  in  fractions  of  an  ounce ; 
thus  woollen  cloths  are  sold  as  12,  15,  20  or  30  ounces  per  yard. 
These  are  short,  concise,  businesslike  expressions  whose  superior- 
ity over  the  metric  expressions  will  be  recognized  at  once  when 
the  two  are  placed  side  by  side: 

English.  Metric. 

12  ounces  per  yard.  370  grammes  per  metre. 

15  ounces  per  yard.  450  grammes  per  metre. 

20  ounces  per  yard.  600  grammes  per  metre. 

30  ounces  per  yard.  900  grammes  per  metre. 

Three  figures  are  required  for  the  metric  as  compared  with 
two  for  the  English  weight. 

The  dekagramme  might  be  used  for  the  weight  per  metre  to 
reduce  the  number  of  figures  at  the  cost  of  adding  two  syllables 
to  the  word  gramme,  but  judging  by  French  and  German  textile 
books  and  periodicals  it  is  not  so  used,  the  gramme  being  the  only 
unit  employed. 

In  manufacturing  cloths  it  is  necessary  to  watch  the  variations 
of  weight  per  yard  which  should,  as  a  rule,  be  kept  within  one- 
half  ounce.  This  gives  five  units  for  the  usual  half -ounce  range 
of  variation,  and  answers  admirably  for  expressing  the  manu- 
facturing weight  per  yard. 

The  grain  divided  into  tenths  is  used  for  analyzing  cloth  by 
the  English  system,  and  as  far  as  size  is  concerned  there  is  little 
to  choose  between  it  and  the  decigramme  and  centigramme, 
which  serve  the  same  purpose  with  the  metric  system. 

We  now  come  to  a  comparison  of  the  English  and  metric 
systems  of  yarn  numbering.  There  are  many  systems  of  yarn 
numbering  based  on  the  metric  as  well  as  on  the  English  system. 
In  another  part  of  this  work  will  be  found  a  comparison  of  the 
English  with  the  metric  systems  of  yarn  numbering  as  they  are 
used  to-day.  Here,  however,  we  will  compare  the  pure  metric 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE.  207 

with  the  English  system.  The  former  is  based  on  1,000  metres 
per  kilogramme.  It  is  used  but  very  little  in  Europe,  chiefly 
for  woollen  yarn,  practically  not  at  all  for  cotton,  linen,  and 
silk.  Obviously  it  would  be  unfair  to  the  English  system  to  com- 
pare this  1,000  metres  per  kilogramme  standard  with  the  mix- 
ture of  all  the  English  standards,  just  as  it  would  be  unfair  to  the 
metric  system  to  compare  one  of  the  English  standards  with  a 
mixture  of  all  the  metric  standards.  For  this  reason  the  com- 
parison will  first  be  made  between  the  1,000  metres  per  kilo- 
gramme and  the  English  840  yards  per  pound,  the  latter  being" 
the  standard  for  cotton  yarn  throughout  the  world,  outside  of 
France,  where  a  system  that  is  not  metric  or  decimal  is  used. 

The  claim  that  the  metric  system  offers  the  world  a  single 
standard  for  numbering  all  kinds  of  yarn  is  repeated  so  often  and 
with  so  much  emphasis,  that  it  has  led  many  to  believe  that  the 
1,000  metre  per  kilogramme  standard  possesses  some  peculiar 
property  that  makes  it  superior  as  a  universal  system.  The  ad- 
vocates of  the  metric  system  tell  us  that  by  adopting  that  system 
of  numbering  yarn  all  kinds  of  material,  cotton,  silk,  wool,  linen, 
etc.,  when  combined  in  one  fabric,  as  they  often  are,  will  be 
numbered  by  one  standard,  facilitating  calculations  and  giving 
textile  operatives  a  clearer  idea  of  the  construction  of  textile 
fabrics. 

But  what  are  the  facts?  The  metric  1,000  metre  per  kilo- 
gramme standard  being  a  fixed  weight  system  is  not  suited  for 
numbering  silk,  and  it  is  no  better  suited  for  numbering  spun 
yarn  than  is  the  English  840  yard  per  pound  system,  now  used 
for  cotton  throughout  the  world.  This  English  system  is  as  well 
adapted  for  woollen,  worsted,  linen  or  other  material  as  it  is  for 
cotton.  Our  comparison  shows  us  that  the  English  system  for 
other  textile  purposes  is  preferable  to  the  metric.  Then  if  any 
system  of  yarn  numbering  is  to  be  selected  as  the  world's  single 
standard  it  should  be  the  English  cotton  which  is  the  best  of  the 
English  standards  and  is  the  one  used  most  throughout  the  world. 
No  one  thinks  of  using  our  840  yards  per  pound  system  for  any- 
thing but  cotton  yarn,  and  few  use  any  other  system  for  cotton 
yarn.  This  has  caused  people  to  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  it  can 
be  used  as  well  for  any  other  kind  of  spun  yarn.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  metric  1,000  metres  per  kilogramme  system  is  put  for- 
ward with  a  great  flourish  as  a  universal  system  and,  not  being 
used  for  anything  in  particular,  is  often  accepted  as  a  standard 


208  THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

for  everything  in  general.  The  contrast  between  the  two  systems 
in  this  respect  illustrates  the  difference  between  English  practice 
and  metric  theory. 

1,000  metres  per  kilogramme  is  equivalent  to  496  yards  per 
pound;  the  metric  is,  consequently,  about  41  per  cent,  shorter 
than  the  English  standard.  The  sizes  can  thus  be  indicated  more 
closely  by  even  units  with  the  metric  system,  but  this  is  of  no 
advantage,  as  for  all  practical  purposes  it  is  found  that  with 
the  longer  English  hank,  gradations  of  two  numbers  or  counts 
are  near  enough  for  all  medium  and  fine  sizes,  while  for  the 
coarser  yarns  variations  in  the  size  can  be  indicated  by  the  whole  or 
fraction  of  a  count. 

Textile  manufacturing  involves  frequent  calculations  in  which 
the  yarn  count  is  a  factor,  and  which  must  be  made  quickly  and 
accurately,  often  when  surrounded  by  the  din  and  confusion  of 
the  mill.  As  it  is  claimed  that  the  metric  system  facilitates  such 
operations,  we  will  next  compare  the  English  and  metric  counts  in 
this  respect. 

Most  of  the  calculations  involving  the  yarn  count  are  made  as 
easily  with  one  fixed  weight  system  as  with  another,  whether  it 
be  the  English  cotton,  pure  metric,  worsted,  run,  linen,  French 
cotton,  Saxon  woollen,  Austrian  linen,  or  any  one  of  the  thirty- 
three  systems  used  in  Europe.  The  following  list  of  calculations 
will  illustrate  the  large  number  that  are  not  affected  by  the  par- 
ticular system  of  numbering  employed : 

The  resulting  count  of  two  or  more  ply  yarn  from  counts  of 
single  strands;  also  the  count  of  the  single  strand  to  be  placed 
with  two  or  more  strands  of  known  size  to  make  the  result- 
ing size  equal  to  a  given  count.  The  same  for  all  systems  of 
yarn  numbering  regardless  of  the  standards  on  which  they  are 
based. 

The  proportionate  weights  of  the  single  strands  in  a  two  or 
more  ply  thread. 

Take-up  in  length  of  single  strands  of  fancy  yarns.  By  per- 
centage or  vulgar  fractions. 

Average  size  of  a  lot  of  yarn  composed  of  known  quantities  of 
given  sizes. 

Proportionate  weights  of  different  counts  to  make  a  given 
average  count. 

The  proportionate  lengths  of  known  counts  to  make  a  given 
average. 


THE   METRIC   FAILURE.  209 

Count  of  one  single  thread  when  the  other  count,  average 
count  and  length  of  each  are  known. 

Count  required  for  given  weight  when  one  count,  total  weight 
and  length  of  each  count  are  known. 

Effect  of  change  in  length  or  weight  on  the  count  of  yarn. 

The  cost  of  twist  yarn  composed  of  single  strands  of  different 
values. 

Length  of  filling  yarn  per  yard  or  metre  from  width  and  filling 
set. 

The  decided  inferiority  of  the  metric  system  of  numbering  yarn 
for  making  the  calculations  for  cloth  analysis  was  shown  when  com- 
paring the  sizes  of  metric  and  English  units. 

We  now  come  to  the  calculations  of  the  weight  of  the  yarn 
from  the  length  and  count.  If  the  length  for  which  the  weight 
is  to  be  calculated  is  expressed  in  hanks  a  simple  division  with 
any  fixed  weight  system  of  numbering,  whether  English  or 
metric,  is  sufficient  to  give  the  weight.  Another  frequent  calcu- 
lation is  that  of  finding  the  weight  of  the  cloth.  This  by  the 
metric  system  consists  in  calculating  the  grammes  per  running 
yard  of  cloth  from  the  length  (in  metres)  and  metric  count  of  the 
yarn ;  by  the  English  system,  in  calculating  the  ounces  per  running 
yard  of  cloth  from  the  length  (in  yards)  and  English  count  of 
the  yarn. 

The  metric  count  indicates  the  number  of  1,000  metre  hanks 
per  kilogramme  or  metres  per  gramme.  If,  then,  we  know  the 
length  of  the  yarn  in  metres,  a  division  by  the  count  or  number 
of  metres  per  gramme  will  give  the  weight  in  grammes.  For 
example,  the  weight  of  2,800  metres  of  metric  No.  56  yarn  is: 

2,800-r-56=50  grammes. 

The  English  count  indicates  the  number  of  840  yard  hanks  per 
pound  or  the  number  of  52^  yard  hanks  per  ounce.  If  we  know 
the  length  of  the  yarn  in  yards,  a  division  by  the  number  of  yards 
per  ounce  will  give  the  weight  in  ounces.  The  English  count, 
however,  indicates  not  the  number  of  100  yard  hanks  per  ounce, 
but  the  number  of  52^  yard  hanks,  so  that  it  is  necessary  to 
reduce  the  English  count  to  a  100  yard  per  ounce  basis  before  a 
simple  division  will  give  the  ounces  per  yard.  This  reduction  in- 
volves the  multiplication  of  the  English  count  by  .52J,  an  extra 
calculation  not  necessary  with  the  metric  system,  and  so  far  and 
only  so  far  as  that  reduction  is  concerned,  is  the  English  inferior 


210  THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 

to  the  metric  in  calculating  the  weight  of  cloth.  Fortunately  for 
the  users  of  the  English  system  this  reduction  can  be  made  men- 
tally in  nearly  every  case.  For  years  I  have  so  reduced  yarn 
counts  to  the  "  run  "  or  100  yards  per  ounce  standard  and  this 
is  the  best  practice  in  American  mills  to-day.  The  "  run " 
count,  as  will  be  easily  seen,  is  one-half  of  the  English  count  plus 
one-twentieth  of  that  one-half.  Then  to  obtain  the  "  run  "  from 
the  English  count  one-twentieth  or  5  per  cent,  is  added  to  one- 
half  of  the  latter  count.  The  following  illustrations  make  the 
operation  clear: 

No.  60  English  =  30    +  1J       or  31J  Kuns. 

"     40  u  =20+1         "  21          " 

"     36  "  =  18    +     .9     "  18.9      " 

"     34  «  =17-    +     .85    "  17.85    " 

"     24  "  =  12    +     .6     "  12.6      " 

"18  "  =    9    +     .45   "      9.45    "^ 

"     17  "  =    8i+     .42J"     JtrftfS"  Z.\ 

"       8  "  =    4    +    .2       "      4.2      " 

"       5  "  =    2J  +     .12J"      2.624" 

Simplifying  the  reduction  in  this  way  reduces  the  advantage 
possessed  by  the  metric  over  the  English  system  in  this  class  of 
calculations  to  nearly  the  vanishing  point. 

There  remain  to  be  considered  the  large  number  of  important 
textile  calculations  in  which  the  yarn  count  is  not  a  factor. 
Many  of  these  are  for  determining  cost.  The  factors  are  units 
of  length  or  weight,  values  expressed  in  dollars  and  cents,  and 
percentage  of  loss  or  gain.  Our  currency  is  decimal,  and  it  is 
mill  practice  to  use  decimal  or  vulgar  fractions  in  expressing 
weight  and  length.  The  metric  system,  therefore,  offers  no  ad- 
vantage over  the  English  system  in  these  calculations  which  com- 
prise by  far  the  most  important  required  in  mill  work.  Follow- 
ing are  a  few  such  problems : 

The  calculations  of  shrinkage  in  length  and  loss  of  weight. 
These  are  made  in  every  process  of  manufacturing  from  the  time 
the  raw  material  enters  the  mill  until  it  emerges  in  the  form  of 
the  finished  product.  They  are  made  by  percentage,  and  as 
easily  with  one  set  of  units  of  weight  or  extension  as  with  another. 

Effect  of  shrinkage  and  value  of  waste  products  on  the  cost  of 
materials  in  process. 

Average  cost  of  mixtures  of  raw  materials  such  as  wool,  cotton, 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  211 

shoddy,  etc.  Here  the  quantity  of  each  kind  of  stock  is  extended 
at  a  given  price  per  pound  and  the  total  cost  divided  by  the  total 
weight.  The  same  operations  for  both  systems.  Multiplying  25 
by  48  is  the  same  operation  whether  the  25  represents  pounds  or 
kilogrammes,  whether  the  48  represents  cents,  centimes  or 
pfennige. 

Determining  the  proportion  of  materials  of  different  values  to 
give  a  required  average  cost.  A  question  in  alligation. 

The  take-up  of  warp  in  weaving.     Calculated  by  percentage. 

Width,  warp  set  and  total  threads.  To  calculate  any  one  from 
the  other  two.  Same  for  both  systems. 

Periodical  statements  of  manufacturing  operations  showing 
production,  total  and  average  cost. 

Summing  up  the  comparison  of  the  English  840  yard  per 
pound  with  the  metric  1,000  metre  per  kilogramme  standard  in 
calculations,  we  find  that  the  English  is  superior  to  the  metric 
in  cloth  analysis;  that  in  a  great  many  important  textile  calcula- 
tions neither  system  offers  any  advantage  over  the  other;  that  in 
calculating  the  weight  from  the  length  and  count  of  yarn  an 
advantage  of  the  metric  system  consists  in  not  having  to  make  a 
reduction  of  the  counts,  which  by  the  English  system  can  in  prac- 
tically all  cases  be  made  mentally. 

The  chief  value  of  a  system  of  weights  and  measures  lies  in 
the  extent  to  which  it  is  used,  particularly  in  the  number  of 
people  whose  ideas  of  measure  and  weight  are  based  upon  its 
standards  alone.  The  English  system  of  weights  and  measures  is 
the  only  one  which  is  the  single  standard  for  any  country.  The 
English  yard,  inch,  pound,  ounce,  dram  and  grain  are  the  only 
standards  used  in  the  British  Empire  and  the  only  ones  used  in  the 
United  States.  The  other  country  coming  nearest  to  having  a  uni- 
form system  is  Russia,  whose  linear  units  are  either  equal  to  or  are 
commensurable  with  the  English  standards.  The  Russian  stand- 
ards of  weight  are  distinct.  The  textile  weights  of  China  and 
Japan  are  involved  in  more  or  less  confusion  with  the  local 
standards  of  these  countries  and,  as  we  have  seen,  the  textile 
standards  of  Continental  Europe  are  in  a  state  of  chaos.  The  extent 
to  which  a  .system  is  used,  as  a  single  standard  may  be  estimated 
either  by  the  amount  of  textile  machinery  operated,  the  raw  ma- 
terial consumed,  or  by  the  population  for  which  it  is  the  only  stand- 
ard. Reliable  statistics  of  machinery  are  lacking  except  for  cotton 
manufacturing,  which  is  the  most  important  branch  of  the  textile 


212  THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 

industry.  The  statistics  of  population  offer,  therefore,  the  only 
means  by  which  we  can  form  an  idea  of  the  extent  to  which 
English  weights  and  measures  form  a  single  standard. 

The  population  of  the  earth  is  estimated  at  1,400,000,000,  that 
of  the  British  Empire  and  the  United  States  at  475,000,000.  On 
this  basis  the  English  textile  system  is  the  single  standard  for 
32  per  cent,  of  the  world's  population,  while  the  textile  in  the 
countries  representing  the  other  68  per  cent,  has  a  mixed  lot  of 
standards. 

We  can,  perhaps,  get  a  better  idea  of  the  relative  employment 
of  the  English  and  metric  textile  systems  from  the  extent  to 
which  their  respective  systems  of  yarn  numbering  are  used  as 
shown  by  the  following  table : 

Material.  Methods  of  Numbering. 

Raw  Silk.  Denier-aune    throughout   the   world.      (Neither 

English  nor  metric.) 
Thrown  Silk.        Denier-aune  on  the  Continent. 

English  dram-1,000  yards  in  United  States  and 

Great  Britain. 

Cotton.  French  1,000  metre--|  kilo  (not  metric)  in  France. 

English  840  yard-pound  throughout  the  rest  of 

the  world. 

Linen,      Hemp,  English  300  yard-pound  is  the  standard  through- 
Jute,  out    the     world.     (Austrian    local     standard 

varies  but  3  per  cent,  from  English.) 

Worsted.  English  560  yards  is  the  standard  for  America 

and  Great  Britain,  also  used  extensively  on  the 
Continent. 

Metric  system  is  used  with  many  other  stand- 
ards on  the  Continent. 
Carded  Woollen.  Run  system  in  America  except  Philadelphia. 

Local  standards  based  on  the  yard-pound  in  Eng- 
land and  Scotland. 

Metric  system  with  many  other  standards  on  the 
Continent. 

This  survey  shows  that  in  the  extent  to  which  it  is  used  the 
English  is  far  ahead  of  the  metric  system. 

It  is  often  claimed  that  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  in 
textile  manufacturing  would  make  it  easier  to  find  foreign  mar- 
kets for  the  finished  product.  Textile  goods  are  sold  by  length 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  213 

or  weight.  After  the  goods  are  finished  they  can  be  weighed  or 
measured  by  any  standard  desired  by  the  customer  and  without 
complicating  the  processes  of  manufacturing.  This  is  the  prac- 
tice in  this  and  doubtless  in  all  other  exporting  countries.  Follow- 
ing is  some  evidence  on  this  point  from  metric  sources : 
M.  le  Baron  Cantoni,  "  Paris  Metric  Yarn  Congress,"  1900: 
An  importing  country  may  oblige  the  foreign  exporters  to  conform  to 
its  regulations.  But  with  an  exporting  nation  the  affair  is  more  difficult. 
Italy  has  no  colonies.  We  export  about  60  million  (sic)  of  cotton  yarn  and 
cloth  to  foreign  countries  and  we  compete  directly  with  England,  and  until 
England  changes  we  cannot  hope  to  introduce  a  new  system  in  the  Orient 
or  in  other  markets. 

M.  Ferdinand  Roy,  same  occasion: 

In  certain  of  our  French  colonies  the  metric  system  has  not  been  intro- 
duced. It  is  necessary  to  proceed  gradually  and  at  first  to  mark  the  num- 
ber of  metres  beside  the  yards  and  the  metric  beside  the  English  numbers. 

Baron  Esnault-Pelterie,  same  occasion: 

This  difficulty  (in  foreign  trade),  has  been  solved  in  France,  since  we 
export  to  the  far  East  our  cloths  folded  by  the  yard,  although  the.  metric 
is  the  legal  system  in  France. 

One  piece  of  cloth  may  be  measured  and  invoiced  by  the  Eng- 
lish yard,  the  next  by  the  Spanish  vara,  another  by  the  French 
metre,  thus  satisfying  the  requirements  of  foreign  customers 
regarding  the  weights  and  measures  of  the  goods  they  buy  with- 
out disturbing  the  manufacturing  standards  and  without  causing 
the  slightest  complication  in  the  manufacturing  processes. 

Suppose,  however,  that  an  agreement  between  manufacturing 
and  foreign  weights  arid  measures  is  a  help  in  securing  foreign 
business.  What  system  would  help  us  most?  The  following  table 
will  show  the  value  of  cotton  goods  exported  by  the  principal 
manufacturing  countries  in  1901,  classified  according  to  the  two- 
systems,  English  and  metric: 

English.  Metric. 

Great  Britain.  .    $358,000,000  Germany..    $59,000,000 

India 35,000,000  France 36,000,000 

United  States .  .        32,000,000  


$425,000,000 


$95,000,000 


More  than  three-quarters  of  the  world's  exports  of  cotton 
goods  is  supplied  by  Great  Britain  and  India,  and  both  are 
countries  in  which  the  English  system  is  the  only  textile  standard 


2:  THE   METKIC    FAILURE. 

in  use.  Less  than  one-fifth  is  supplied  by  France  and  Germany 
in  which  the  metric  system  is  used  but  partially.  England  is 
also  far  in  the  lead  in  the  export  of  woollen  and  worsted  goods. 
The  following  statements  by  foreign  authorities  show  how  the 
exporters  of  textiles  on  the  Continent  are  forced  to  conform  to 
the  English  system: 

M.  Boucher-Peyerick,  "  Paris  Metric  Yarn  Congress,"  1900: 
We  Belgians  export  enormous  quantities  of  linen  yarn  to  England,  Asia 
and  Egypt,  and  we  cannot  adopt  the  metric  system  without  risking  the 
loss  of  this  trade.  Our  customers  in  the  countries  named  are  familiar 
with  the  English  system  of  numbering,  and  if  we  do  not  give  it  to  them 
our  competitors  will,  and  we  will  lose  the  market.  I  speak  not  alone  for 
myself  but  for  all  Belgian  spinners.  We  cannot  change. 

Baron  Cantoni,  "  Paris  Metric  Yarn  Congress,"  1900 : 

It  is  necessary  to  remember  that  nearly  all  the  exports  of  cotton  yarn  are 
from  England,  and  we  can  do  nothing  if  that  country  does  not  adopt  the 
system  we  favor.  *  *  *  The  difficulty  will  always  be  in  exporting  to 
uncivilized  lands  where  the  people  have  been  accustomed  for  a  hundred 
years  to  English  measures  and  numbers  and  where  articles  of  cotton  are 
often  used  as  currency. 

M.  de  Pacher,  "Paris  Metric  Yarn  Congress,"  1900: 

To  begin  with,  I  must  say  it  is  my  belief  that  uniform  numbering  can  be 
obtained  in  all  countries  only  by  a  law  made  compulsory  after  a  certain 
<late.  The  spinners  who  should  begin  to  number  their  yarn  according  to 
the  resolutions  of  Congress  before  the  old  numbers  were  prohibited  by  law, 
Tvould  be  under  the  necessity  of  keeping  their  product  until  forced  to  sell 
it  at  the  best  price  and  at  an  incalculable  loss. 

M.  Louis  Guerin,  Lille,  "  Paris  Metric  Yarn  Congress,"  1900: 
It  is  practically  impossible  for  us   (the  French),  to  sell  linen  by  any 
other  than  the  English  standard.     *     *     *     If  the  law  of  1810  providing 
for  the  metric  standard  is  enforced  we  shall  be  the  first  to  complain  of 
that  which  we  have  asked  for. 

The  principal  foreign  market  for  textiles  is  found  in  Asia. 
Last  year  a  new  Chinese  tariff  was  framed.  It  covered  fifty-three 
items.  On  three  the  rate  was  assessed  by  the  Chinese  catty  (1-J 
pounds);  on  five,  ad  valorem,  on  the  other  forty-five  by  the 
English  yard,  inch  or  pound.  The  metric  system  was  not  men- 
tioned. The  tariff  was  published  in  this  form  in  German  papers 
for  the  benefit  of  German  exporters.  In  July,  1903,  United  States 
Consul  H.  B.  Miller  at  Muchwang,  China,  sent  to  the  State 
Department  at  Washington  a  collection  of  Russian  and  native 
Chinese  cotton  cloths,  with  particulars  as  to  length  and  width, 
light  of  the  measurements  were  Chinese,  three  English  and  nine 


THE   METKIC   FAILURE.    .  215 

Russian,  the  last  named  being  either  equal  to  or  commensurable 
with  the  English  units.  No  reference  was  made  to  the  metric 
system. 

The  Japanese  tariff  shows  a  similar  condition.  Of  the  sixty- 
five  textile  items  the  rate  on  three  is  expressed  by  the  dozen; 
on  eleven  by  the  Chinese  catty  (1J  pounds),  and  on  fifty-one  by 
the  English  yard.  ~No  mention  is  made  of  the  metric  system. 

It  is  evident  that  if  our  textile  standards  are  to  be  in  con- 
formity with  the  leading  standards  in  foreign  markets  they  must 
remain  unchanged.  If  foreign  trade  is  helped  by  an  agreement 
between  manufacturing  and  selling  standards,  the  metric 
countries  would  be  benefited  by  adopting  the  English  system. 

At  this  point  I  will  call  attention  to  the  widely  circulated  claim 
that  the  consumers  of  silk  and  woollen  yarn  in  India  have  become 
so  accustomed  to  the  metric  system  of  numbering  that  they  will 
have  no  other.  The  following  facts  show  how  baseless  such  a 
claim  is.  The  only  standard  used  anywhere  for  numbering  silk 
is  the  denier-aune.  India  has  a  very  hot  climate  and  a  very  poor 
population ;  very  little  wool,  therefore,  is  used  as  is  shown  by  the 
following  extract  from  the  Monthly  Summary  of  Commerce  and 
Finance  of  the  United  States  for  December,  1902 : 

The  woollen  industry  expands  but  slowly  in  India  in  comparison  with 
the  expansion  of  cotton  and  jute  mills.  There  were  only  four  woollen  mills 
at  work  at  the  close  of  1901, — one  at  Cawnpore,  one  at  Dhariwal  in  the 
Punjab,  one  in  the  city  of  Bombay  and  one  at  Bangalore — containing  594 
looms  and  22,986  spindles.  The  capital  employed  in  it  is  also  relatively 
small.  There  is,  however,  not  much  demand  in  India  for  woollen  goods, 
except  for  descriptions  which  can  hardly  be  profitably  made  in  India  in 
competition  with  the  European  mills,  and  any  large  expansion  of  the  in- 
dustry can  hardly  be  anticipated. 

The  importations  and  manufactures  of  silk  and  wool  are  unimportant  in 
comparison  with  the  importations  of  cotton  manufacture.  In  most  parts 
of  India  the  climate  and  the  habits  of  the  people  discourage  the  use  of 
woollens  to  any  extent,  and  they  are  worn  mainly  by  the  better  class  in 
Northern  India,  and  then  only  in  the  colder  months  of  the  year.  Nor  is 
the  use  of  woollen  bedclothes  at  all  a  habit  among  them,  the  quilted  razai 
of  cotton  or  cotton  sheet  taking  the  place  of  the  blanket  very  commonly. 
The  people  of  India  are  too  poor,  generally  speaking,  for  the  possession  of 
even  the  one  garment  of  silk  which  in  so  many  other  countries  is  brought 
forth  for  wear  on  high  days  and  holidays. 

Evidently  India  is  just  the  place  to  use  the  metric  system  for 
silk  and  wool. 

We  will  now  compare  the  English  and  metric  systems  of 
numbering  yarn  as  we  find  them  used  throughout  the  world. 


216 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 


T-IOtT-n-l       «       i-KNt-T-ie*       C*(N.-ieO'NeO(N<?»CJ       TI  C»  «  ri  TH  TH  ^rn 


)   -*J<  TH  <N  «5  Ol  P3   (M  OS  W  «  r-i  Qt  CO  CO  -*  CO  Ol  CO  ri   00 

jsss's 


35 


l^T^GOQO'^J*00'Tt1QOC^-C^OOJCO'^i>CiQOi.'-QOCOl—  tOiCOC^ 


.0 


- 

ll 

"*O"*O 


Tt<OO!^OOOOOOOO 

'  ' 


--         -JJJJ 

l  3      1       II 

OOOOl-OOOO 


QD 


Is  s  s  s  i  I" 


£ 


"S^TSs  £^^"?^ 


«    3- 

60-  -  -  bfl" 

S  '  & 


a>  4) 

CQO 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE.  217 

The  first  nine  lines  of  the  table  on  the  opposite  page 
give  the  bases  and  equivalents  for  the  four  Anglo-American 
and  five  local  English  and  Scotch  systems  of  numbering  spun 
yarn.  These  local  standards  are  used  for  carded  woollen  yarn 
only.  All  are  based  on  the  English  yard-pound.  The  only  dif- 
ference between  them  is  in  the  length  of  the  hanks.  Even  this 
variation  of  the  Anglo-American  hanks  is  less  in  practice  than 
the  table  indicates,  because  each  hank  is  used  almost  exclusively 
for  one  kind  of  textile  material.  Each  of  these  standards  is  used 
in  one  branch  of  textile  manufacturing  whose  processes  are  dis- 
tinct and  separate  up  to  weaving.  The  workmen  in  each  do  not 
require,  and  usually  do  not  have,  any  definite  knowledge  of  the 
other  two.  This  limits  the  contact  of  the  four  systems  to  the 
weaving  and  designing  departments  and  to  the  general  manage- 
ment of  weaving  mills.  Fortunately,  however,  the  840,  560,  300 
and  1,600  yard  standards  have  certain  relations  to  each  other 
which  remove  the  apparent  difficulty  of  using  them  together. 

The  cotton  is  just  one-half  longer  than  the  worsted  skein,  and 
the  number  by  the  worsted  system  is  therefore  larger  by  just 
one-half  than  by  the  cotton  system;  that  is,  No.  20  cotton  is 
equal  to  No.  30  worsted.  The  cotton  number  can  likewise  be 
obtained  from  the  worsted  number  by  taking  one-third  from  the 
latter;  that  is,  No.  30  worsted  equals  No.  20  cotton.  The  Eng- 
lish cotton  count  can  be  reduced  to  the  linen  basis  by  multiply- 
ing by  2.8.  The  reduction  of  the  linen  to  the  cotton  count  is 
effected  by  dividing  by  2.8. 

When  we  come  to  the  1,600  yard  skein,  the  standard  for  the 
carded  woollen  yarn,  we  find  that  No.  1  woollen  yarn,  measuring 
1,600  yards  per  pound,  measures  100  yards  per  ounce;  that  No. 
2  yarn  measures  200  yards  per  ounce;  No.  3^  yarn  350  yards  per 
ounce,  the  count  indicating  in  each  case  the  number  of  yards  per 
ounce.  This  facilitates  greatly  the  calculation  of  the  weight  per 
yard,  which  is  expressed  in  ounces.  If  a  yard  of  cloth  contains, 
say,  4,000  yards  of  3-run  warp  yarn,  a  simple  division  will  show 
that  the  warp  weighs  13^  ounces  per  yard. 

The  advantage  of  the  "  run  "  system  has  led  to  its  adoption 
for  calculating  the  weight  per  yard,  not  only  of  carded  woollen, 
but  of  cotton  and  worsted  cloths,  the  "  run  "  equivalents  for  the 
cotton  and  worsted  counts  being  easily  found  by  a  mental  calcula- 
tion, as  already  explained.  It  is  not  claimed  that  this  system  in- 
volving the  use  of  four  methods  of  yarn  numbering  is  the  best 


218 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 


Anglo  American  Local,Scotch  and  English. 

ANGLO-AMERICAN  SYSTEMS  OF  NUMBERING  SPUN  YARN. 

that  can  be  devised.  If  we  could  start  anew  and  establish  a  new 
standard,  it  is  certain  that  mill  experience  with  the  present 
methods  would  dictate  but  one  base  for  all  textile  materials 
except  silk.  But  we  are  not  starting  at  the  beginning;  we  inherit 
from  the  past  these  four  systems  of  numbering  spun  yarn.  They 
are  firmly  established.  They  are  all  based  on  the  yard-pound, 
and  being  readily  commensurable  offer  decided  facilities  for  their 
joint  use. 

Let  us  turn  now  to  the  metric  yarn  numbering  of  Continental 
Europe.  The  thirty-three  indigenous  systems  of  numbering  spun 
yarn  on  the  Continent  at  the  present  time  are  found  on  the  same 
table.  They  are  the  remains  of  old  European  systems  partially 
converted  into  metric  equivalents — a  heterogeneous  lot  of  basic 
units  of  weight  and  length,  including  the  kilogramme,  half -kilo- 
gramme, Paris,  Berlin,  English  and  Vienna  pounds,  metre,  aune, 
Leipzig,  Vienna,  Berlin  and  Brabant  ells,  Spanish  cane  and 
English  yard.  The  last  column  in  which  are  the  metric  equiv- 
alents of  these  thirty-three  systems,  shows  what  a  chaos  of  yarn 
counts  confronts  Continental  manufacturers.  They  must  con- 
tend with  this  medley  of  ratios  as  well  as  the  mixture  of  basic 
standards  of  weight  and  length.  Added  to  these  they  have  the 
English  cotton,  linen  and  worsted  standards  in  common  use  to  in- 
crease the  disorder.  It  is  indeed  a  chaos  that  beggars  description. 

The  two  charts  *  before  us  present  in  graphic  form  the  world's 
systems  of  numbering  spun  yarn.  The  chart  on  page  218  shows 

*  The  shaded  rectangle  at  the  left  of  each  line  represents  the  unit  of 
weight;  the  blank  rectangle  at  the  right,  the  unit  of  length  on  which  the 
system  is  based.  These  rectangles  of  length  and  weight  are  drawn  to  a 
scale.  The  perpendicular  lines  beginning  one-half  inch  above  the  base 
line,  represent  the  lengths  of  the  hank. 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 


219 


l 

France 


France 


4 
Franci 


~ 


5 
France 


France 


7 
France 


10  11 

France        Austria 


— 


- 


14  15  16 

Austria     German       German 


17 
German 


19  20 

German       German 


German       German 


~ 


- 


23  24  25  26  27  is  29 

German        German       German       Germaa       German      German       German 


1 

r~ 

:f 

30 
German 

31 
German 

32  3:; 

Dutch          Spain 


CONTINENTAL  SYSTEMS  OF  NUMBERING  SPUN  YARN. 


220  THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 

the  English,  that  on  the  opposite  page  the  metric  or  Continental 
practice. 

In  its  basic  standards  the  English  standards  present  absolute 
uniformity;  the  metric  system,  inconceivable  diversity. 

In  the  length  of  the  hanks  the  English  system  shows  its  only 
diversity,  and  here  the  lengths  are  in  round  numbers.  The 
metric  hanks  present  an  array  of  lengths  expressed  in  numbers 
that  stagger  calculations. 

In  the  resulting  proportions  between  weight  and  length  the 
English  system  offers  to  Americans  four  ratios,  readily  commen- 
surable. The  metric  are  all  incommensurable. 

Each  of  the  English  standards  is  confined  to  one  textile 
material  and  for  all  Americans  outside  of  the  Philadelphia  dis- 
trict each  textile  material  has  its  own  single  standard.  The 
metric  system  employs  four  standards  for  cotton,  one  for  linen, 
five  for  worsted  and  twenty-three  for  woollen. 

The  English  systems  are  the  only  standards  used  in  English- 
speaking  countries.  The  metric  systems  are  the  exclusive  stand- 
ards for  no  country  or  manufacturing  district.  Wherever  used 
they  are  in  conflict  with  each  other  and  with  the  English  systems, 
which  for  cotton  and  linen  are  the  standards  of  the  world. 

The  choice  lies  between  these  two  systems,  English  and  metric. 
One  has  been  adapted  to  mill  work  by  a  process  of  natural  selec- 
tion. The  other  is  the  result  of  the  artificial  scheme  of  Erench 
geometers  and  is  unsuited  for  textile  processes.  It  is  inconceiv- 
able that  America  should  abandon  the  first  and  accept  the  last. 

English  scale.  Metric  scale. 

Base  units    1  pound  =  -£-in.  height.  Base  units    1  kilogramme  =  i-in.  height. 

Base  units    1  yard     =  ^-in.  height.  Base  units    1  metre  =  i-in.  height. 

Hank          80  yards   =  fo'm.  height.  Hank         80  metres  =  i^-in-  height. 


CONCLUSION. 

So  evident  that  it  will  glimmer  through  a  blind  man's  eye. — Henry  VI. 

Somewhat  more  than  a  century  ago  when  the  metric  system  was 
established  in  France,  the  French  textile  industry  was  carried 
on  almost  wholly  by  hand  or  foot  power,  and  by  processes  as 
primitive  as  at  the  dawn  of  history.  Wool,  flax  and  cotton  were 
slowly  and  laboriously  carded  by  hand  and  then  spun  into  yarn 
by  the  women  of  the  household  on  hand  spinning-wheels.  The 
yarn  was  then  knit  or  woven  by  hand. 

The  metric  system  appeared  before  the  invention  of  the  steam 
engine  and  the  power  spinning-machine,  and  before  the  inven- 
tions of  Arkwright  and  Cartwright  had  begun  that  revolution  in 
textile  manufacturing  which  has  resulted  in  the  development  of 
the  present  factory  system  for  the  production  of  complex  and 
varied  fabrics. 

The  weights  and  measures  of  this  primitive  industry  were  as 
simple  as  the  machinery  and  processes.  The  size  of  the  yarn 
was  regulated  by  the  judgment  of  the  spinner  and  gauged  by  the 
sweep  of  her  arm  and  the  pressure  of  her  finger.  The  texture 
of  the  cloth  was  regulated  by  the  threads  per  inch,  the  one  well- 
defined  standard  of  measure  employed  in  the  textile  industry  one 
hundred  years  ago.  No  better  time  could  have  been  selected 
for  the  introduction  and  adoption  of  a  new  system  of  textile 
weights  and  measures. 

These  favoring  circumstances  arising  from  the  primitive  state 
of  textile  processes  were  further  supplemented  in  great  degree 
by  the  political  and  social  conditions  under  which  the  metric 
system  was  established.  That  system  was  conceived  in  the  royal 
household  of  Louis  XVI,  and  its  introduction  throughout  the 
country  became  one  of  the  settled  purposes  of  the  aristocracy 
and  the  established  church.  By  a  curious  combination  of  cir- 


222  THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 

cumstances  the  new  system  of  weights  and  measures,  proposed 
by  the  royal  regime  and  advocated  by  the  aristocracy  and  the 
church,  was  enthusiastically  accepted  by  the  revolutionary  party. 
Eobespierre  and  his  followers  welcomed  it  as  something  new  at 
a  time  when  all  the  institutions  of  the  past  were  objects  of  their 
most  intense  hatred.  The  old  weights  and  measures,  the  boisseau, 
aune,  pied  and  pouce  were  inseparably  connected  with  the  oppres- 
sion of  the  people  by  the  nobles,  who  were  accustomed  to  alter 
the  dimensions  of  these  units  instead  of  raising  the  rate  of  taxa- 
tion when  they  found  it  necessary  to  levy  fresh  contributions 
from  their  wretched  subjects. 

To  the  common  people  the  old  units  of  weights  and  measures 
were  the  objects  of  as  much  hatred  as  were  the  king  and  nobles. 
The  nobles,  the  church,  and  the  people,  at  war  on  nearly  every 
other  question,  were  united  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  a  new 
system  of  weights  and  measures.  The  scientists  commissioned  to 
design  this1  system  included  some  of  the  greatest  mathematicians 
the  world  has  ever  known.  The  scientific  rank  of  these  men  was 
to  guarantee  the  preeminence  of  any  system  of  weights  and 
measures  they  might  devise,  and  by  the  weight  of  authority  to 
lead  people  to  accept  it  without  protest,  to  make  ridiculous  any 
one  who  might  dare  object. 

These  men  faithfully  executed  their  commission.  They  de- 
signed a  system  like  no  other.  Nothing  less  than  the  earth 
would  answer  as  a  basis  for  the  system  designed  for  the  use  of 
the  whole  world.  The  distance  along  the  meridian  of  Paris  from 
Dunkirk  to  Barcelona  was  measured  and  the  distance  from  the 
equator  to  the  North  Pole  along  this  meridian  was  calculated. 
One  ten-millionth  part  of  the  distance  thus  estimated  was  suc- 
cessively multiplied  or  divided  by  10  to  obtain  units  for  the  use 
of  the  people. 

The  most  drastic  and  sweeping  French  laws  were  enacted  to 
compel  the  French  people  to  abandon  the  old  and  accept  the  new 
system.  During  the  one  hundred  years  since  that  time  every 
French  regime  has  continued  this  policy  of  force. 

No  conditions  can  be  imagined  more  favorable  to  the  attempt 
to  change  a  people's  weights  and  measures.  Notwithstanding 
these  powerful  influences,  the  textile  weights  and  measures  of 
France  are  at  the  present  time  in  a  state  of  indescribable  con- 
fusion. As  one  Frenchman  recently  expressed  it,  "  we  are  as 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE.  223 

much  in  the  anarchy  of  weights  and  measures  for  the  textile  indus- 
try as  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution." 

The  reasons  for  the  failure  of  this  colossal  effort  of  a  century 
to  change  the  textile  weights  and  measures  of  France  is  not 
difficult  to  find.  The  ideas  of  length,  area,  volume  and  weight 
are  as  firmly  grounded  as  any  that  find  a  lodging  in  the  mind 
of  man.  They  are  bound  to  the  records  of  the  past,  to  the  work 
of  the  present,  and  to  the  plans  for  the  future.  They  are  in- 
effaceably  imprinted  upon  the  mind  of  every  child  to  regulate 
his  ideas  of  extension  and  weight  as  long  as  life  may  last. 

These  natural  conditions  are  alone  sufficient  to  account  for 
the  failure  of  the  metric  system  in  France.  Other  influences, 
however,  have  served  to  make  the  failure  more  complete  in  the 
textile  industry.  The  metric  system  needed  something  more  than 
the  transcendent  mathematical  faculties  of  its  designers  to  make 
it  suitable  for  textile  measurements. 

The  eminent  scientists  who  designed  that  system  were  able  to 
solve  the  most  difficult  problems  in  higher  mathematics,  but  they 
failed  to  comprehend  what  system  of  weights  and  measures  was 
best  suited  for  the  carder,  spinner,  weaver  and  finisher  of  wool, 
cotton,  linen  and  silk.  The  glamor  of  their  fame  failed  to  make 
the  centimetre  suitable  for  counting  picks.  Their  system  had  to 
stand  or  fall  on  its  merits,  and  falling  has  proved  that  the  high- 
est of  mathematical  abilities  is  not  inconsistent  with  a  dense  ignor- 
ance of  the  practical  affairs  of  every-day  life.  The  most  eminent 
of  the  mathematicians  who  designed  the  metric  system  exhibited 
an  utter  disregard  of  principle  in  both  private  and  public  life  and 
the  most  complete  incompetency  when  placed  in  an  adminis- 
trative office.  The  son  of  a  farm  laborer  he  owed  his  education 
to  wealthy  neighbors,  and  as  soon  as  he  became  distinguished 
ignored  both  his  relatives  and  benefactors.  Although  his  dis- 
coveries in  mathematics  were  sufficient  to  make  his  name  im- 
mortal, he  appropriated  the  work  of  others  as  his  own.  He 
changed  his  republican  principles  with  the  rapidity  of  the  kaleido- 
scope to  keep  them  in  harmony  with  the  successive  republican 
regimes,  and  cut  loose  from  them  completely  to  become  a  fol- 
lower of  the  First  Consul  to  whom  he  proposed  that  the  name 
"  metric  system  "  should  be  changed  to  "  mesures  Napoleones." 
In  his  greatest  treatise  on  mathematics  he  inserted  a  note  that 
"  of  all  the  truths  therein  contained  the  most  precious  to  the 


224  THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

author  was  the  declaration  he  thus  made  of  his  devotion  to  the 
Peacemaker  of  Europe." 

He  omitted  this  note  from  later  editions,  and  in  1814  when 
Napoleon's  fall  was  inevitable  tendered  his  services  to  the  Bour- 
bons and  was  rewarded  with  the  title  of  marquis. 

He  begged  and  obtained  the  post  of  minister  of  the  interior 
under  Napoleon  and  was  then  charged  with  the  practical  work  of 
an  administrative  office.  Six  weeks  were  sufficient  to  prove  how 
little  he  knew  about  practical  affairs,  and  at  the  end  of  that  time 
he  was  transferred  to  the  Senate.  The  visionary  character  of  this 
designer  of  the  metric  system  is  thus  stated  by  Napoleon  on  that 
occasion : 

Geometer  of  the  first  rank,  he  lost  no  time  in  proving  himself  to  be  an 
administrator  far  below  mediocre.  From  his  very  first  act  we  were  con- 
vinced that  we  had  made  a  mistake;  he  did  not  grasp  any  question  from 
the  true  point  of  view;  he  searched  everywhere  for  subtilities;  he  had  a 
mind  only  for  the  problematical  and  carried  the  idea  of  the  "  infiniment 
petit "  even  into  administrative  affairs. 

Such  was  the  man  who  was  the  chief  among  the  designers  of 
the  metric  system  and  who  advanced  the  following  fantastic 
reason  for  its  adoption : 

There  is  a  certain  pleasure  for  the  head  of  a  family  to  say:  "  The  field 
from  which  my  children  derive  their  subsistence  is  such  a  part  of  the 
Globe.  In  that  proportion  I  am  co-proprietor  of  the  World." 

This  man  could  demonstrate  that  the  "  lunar  acceleration  was 
independent  of  the  secular  changes  in  the  eccentricity  of  the 
earth's  orbit/'  but  did  not  know  that  a  weaver  requires  a  unit  of 
length  approximating  the  inch.  He  could  formulate  the  theory 
of  probabilities  with  mathematical  precision,  but  was  ignorant 
of  the  certainty  that  exclusively  decimal  divisions  of  weights 
and  measures  are  unsuited  for  manufacturing  cloth.  He  was 
the  first  to  introduce  potential  and  spherical  harmonics  into 
analysis,  but  failed  to  recognize  the  advantage  of  the  -English 
cotton  system  for  numbering  yarn.  He  could  prove  the  stability 
of  the  solar  system,  but  failed  to  recognize  the  stability  of  a 
people's  established  weights  and  measures.  He  was  familiar  with 
theories  of  infinity,  but  ignorant  of  the  wants,  necessities  and 
limitations  of  textile  manufacturing.  The  co-workers  of  this 


THE   METRIC    FAILURE. 

113 an  in  constructing  the  metric  system  differed  from  him  only 
in  degree.  They  were  a  party  of  mathematical  prodigies,  igno- 
rant of  the  essentials  of  textile  Aveights  and  measures. 

The  artificial  system  they  evolved  has  failed  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  the  textile  trade.  Nearly  every  one  of  its 
standards  of  length,  area  and  weight  is  either  too  large  or  too 
small,  and  it  has  no  units  corresponding  to  the  inch,  foot,  ounce 
and  pound,  approximations  of  which  are  found  in  every  system 
of  natural  origin  and  for  which  the  human  mind  appears  to  have 
some  innate  need.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  therefore,  that 
the  system  thus  conceived  has  failed,  even  in  France  where'  it 
was  so  greatly  favored.  A  comparison  of  the  conditions  in  France 
one  hundred  years  ago  with  those  in  the  United  States  at  the 
present  shows  that  the  influences  that  so  strongly  favored  the 
metric  system  there  are  lacking  here;  that  the  inherent  natural 
difficulty  of  changing  a  people's  weights  and  measures  is  as  great 
now  as  then ;  and  that  the  task  has  been  rendered  vastly  more 
difficult  by  new  conditions. 

The  textile  industry  has  shifted  from  the  household  to  the 
factory.  Hand  and  foot  power  have  been  displaced  by  the  water 
wheel,  the  steam  engine  and  the  electric  motor.  The  spindle 
of  the  mule  and  the  ring  frame  has  taken  the  place  of  the  old- 
fashioned  spinning-wheel.  The  hand  loom  has  disappeared. 
The  high-speed  power  loom  is  in  its  place,  and  the  cloth  woven 
by  one  girl  to-day  is  equal  to  that  of  two  hundred  weavers  a 
century  ago.  The  simple  harness  motion  of  the  eighteenth 
century  has  been  displaced  by  the  dobby  and  the  jacquard.  A 
like  development  has  been  made  in  all  the  complicated  processes 
of  textile  manufacturing.  Instead  of  the  plain,  crude,  hand- 
made fabrics  worn  by  the  people  of  the  eighteenth  century  we 
iiow  have  intricate  textures  of  wool,  worsted,  cotton  and  silk, 
manufactured  by  power  in  innumerable  combinations  of  weave, 
color  and  design.  In  the  rude  textile  processes  a  hundred  years 
ago  there  was  but  little  need  for  weighing  and  measuring.  To-day 
there  is  not  a  single  process  of  textile  manufacturing  in  which 
accurate  weights  and  measures  and  accurately  adjusted  ratios 
between  weight  and  linear  measure  are  not  essential  to  the  suc- 
cess of  the  mill. 

Then  the  diversity  of  weights  and  measures  throughout  the 
country  was  an  imperative  reason  for  reform.  Now  the  yard- 


226  THE   METRIC   FAILURE. 

pound  is  the  single  standard  for  the  United  States  and  all  English- 
speaking  countries,  and  is  in  general  use  wherever  textile  fibres 
are  spun  into  yarn.  The  trend  throughout  the  world  is  toward 
the  supremacy  of  the  English  language  and  the  English  yard- 
pound. 

The  United  States  has  an  area  nineteen  times  that  of  France 
in  1790,  and  a  population  three  times  as  large.  The  increase  of 
our  population  in  a  decade  is  equal  to  the  total  increase  of  the 
population  of  France  for  the  past  century. 

The  political  conditions  which  so  strongly  favored  the  origin 
and*  establishment  of  the  metric  system  in  France  have  no 
counterpart  here,  We  have  no  king  to  order  a  change  of  our 
standards  of  textile  weights  and  measures,  no  established  church 
or  aristocracy  to  execute  the  royal  decree.  In  the  place  of  a 
people  accustomed  to  being  controlled  by  an  arbitrary  govern- 
ment, we  have  a  people  who  govern  themselves,  and  who  are 
quick  to  resent  the  interference  of  the  police  power  in  their  pri- 
vate affairs. 

In  the  place  of  a  people  in  revolt  against  all  that  reminds  them 
of  the  past  and  looking  upon  their  old  weights  and  measures  as 
the  badges  of  a  servitude  from  which  they  had  just  escaped,  we 
find  here  a  vast  population  satisfied  with  republican  institutions 
which  are  the  result  of  centuries  of  growth  in  self-government 
and  to  which  their  laws,  language,  and  weights  and  measures 
are  inseparably  bound. 

When  the  metric  system  was  introduced  in  France  the  French 
people  were  in  arms  struggling  fiercely  to  change  all  established 
institutions,  and  make  the  metric  system  their  only  standard  of 
weights  and  measures.  To-day  no  demand  for  such  a  change 
comes  from  the  American  people.  Our  English  standards  have 
become  a  part  of  our  lives  and  are  interwoven  with  all  our  occu- 
pations. Any  attempt  to  change  these  standards  would  be  resisted 
by  an  inertia  far  more  effective  than  the  power  exerted  by  the 
French  people  over  one  hundred  years  ago  in  favor  of  the  metric 
system. 

Notwithstanding  a  century  of  failure  to  change  the  textile 
standards  in  France,  and  with  the  radically  different  conditions 
in  this  country  under  which  all  the  advantages  France  possessed 
are  lacking  and  all  the  difficulties  enormously  increased,  it  is  now 
proposed  to  establish  the  French  system  in  the  United  States. 


THE    METRIC    FAILURE. 


227 


The  men  who  make  that  proposition  apparently  know  as  little 
of  the  needs  of  the  textile  industry  as  did  the  founders  of  the 
metric  system  in  1790.  It  would  be  a  plunge  into  chaos  to 
emerge  no  one  knows  when,  how  or  where.  The  generation  intro- 
ducing the  metric  system  into  the  United  States  would  not  see 
the  beginning  of  that  chaos.  In  all  probability  no  other  genera- 
tion would  ever  see  the  end. 


ACTION  OF  YAEIOUS  ASSOCIATIONS  ON  THE  ME- 
TEIC  SYSTEM  BILL  WHICH  WAS  KEPOETED 
FAVOEABLY  TO  THE  FIFTY-SEVENTH  CON- 
GEESS,  AEEANGED  IN  THE  CHEONOLOGICAL 
OEDEE  IN  WHICH  THE  ACTIONS  WEEE  TAKEN. 

RESOLUTIONS     OF     THE     NATIONAL    ASSOCIATION     OF     MACHINE 

TOOL    BUILDERS. 

Whereas,  The  members  of  the  National  Machine  Tool  Builders'  Association, 
in  convention  assembled,  having  carefully  considered  the  provisions  of  house 
bill  H.  R.  2054,  do  hereby  emphatically  protest  against  the  enactment  of  said 
bill,  because: 

First:  The  experience  of  Germany,  in  which  the  old  measures  are  still  in 
large  use,  has  shown  that  the  change  cannot  be  completed  even  after  a  gen- 
eration of  confusion. 

Second:  The  sale  of  many  million  dollars'  worth  of  Machine  Tools  has 
been  made  abroad,  by  members  of  this  Association,  especially  to  France  and 
Germany,  without  requirement  or  request  by  the  purchasers  for  changes  in 
general  construction,  to  conform  to  metric  measurements,  the  only  changes 
being  in  adjusting  and  measuring  screws,  the  great  majority  of  machines 
needing  no  changes  whatever. 

Third:  The  adoption  of  the  metric  system  would  entai]  an  enormous  first 
cost  of  new  equipment  to  conform  to  the  new  standards  and  a  constant 
increased  cost  in  the  maintenance  of  a  double  standard  for  repairs  and  re- 
newals, and  a  consequent  increased  cost  of  the  product  to  the  consumer. 


ACTION  OF  THE  ENGINE  BUILDERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF  THE  UNITED 

STATES. 

The  action  of  this  society  was  in  the  form  of  a  detailed  reply  to  the  cir- 
cular of  questions  sent  out  by  the  committee  of  the  Franklin  Institute.  The 
direct  reference  to  the  congressional  bill  is  as  follows: 

We  are  decidedly  opposed  to  this  bill  and  we  believe,  if  the  metric  system 
had  possessed  any  merit,  it  would  have  come  into  use  long  ago,  not  by  force 
of  law  but  by  that  of  expedience.  .  .  .  Even  granting  all  the  merits  that 
have  been  claimed  for  it,  a  fair  statement  from  a  commercial  and  engineer- 
ing standpoint  is  that  it  offers  no  marketable  improvement. 

RESULT   OF    A   BALLOT    BY   MAIL   TAKEN   BY    THE   NATIONAL   AS- 
SOCIATION OF  MANUFACTURERS. 

Question:  Should  Congress  enact  any  law  to  enforce  the  use  of  the  metric 
system  in  any  of  the  departments  of  the  government? 
Answers:   Yes,  51;    no,  156;   non-committal,  6. 


APPENDIX.  229 

RESULT   OF  A   BALLOT   BY  MAIL  TAKEN   BY   THE   AMERICAN   SO- 
CIETY  OF  MECHANICAL  ENGINEERS. 

In  favor  of  the  adoption  of  the  Metric  System  of  Weights  and  Measures 

as  the  only  legal  standard  in  the  United  States 103 

Against  adoption  of  the  Metric  System  of  Weights  and  Measures  as  the 

only  legal  standard  in  the  United  States 363 

In  favor  of  adoption  of  H.  R.  Bill  No.  2054 95 

Against  adoption  of  H.  R.  Bill  No.  2054 342 

In  favor  of   legislation   which  would   promote  adoption  of   the   Metric 

System   153 

Against  legislation  which  would  promote  adoption  of  the  Metric  System    311 
The  substitution  of  the  Metric  for  the  English  system  would  be  detri- 
mental   to   my   business 243 

The  substitution  of  the  Metric  for  the  English  system  would   not  be 

detrimental   to  my   business 145 

The  substitution  of  the  Metric  for  the  English  system  would  be  of  ad- 
vantage   to    my    business 89 


RESOLUTIONS    BY    THE    ASSOCIATION    OF    RAILWAY    MASTER    ME- 
CHANICS. 

Whereas,  A  bill  for  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  in  the  departments 
of  the  Federal  Government  has  been  reported  favorably  to  the  House  of 
Representatives ; 

Whereas,  We  consider  that  the  only  effect  of  such  a  law  will  be  the  creation 
of  a  government  metric  system  and  the  continuation  of  the  existing  system 
in  ordinary  commerce  and  industry; 

Whereas,  It  is  evident  that  the  confusion  resulting  from  such  a  condition 
of  things  would  be  intolerable; 

Whereas,  We  believe  a  charge  in  the  system  of  weights  and  measures  used 
by  the  people  at  large  to  be  impossible;  therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  By  the  American  Railway  Master  Mechanics'  Association,  in  con- 
vention assembled,  that  we  condemn  all  legislation  intended  to  promote  the 
adoption  of  the  metric  system  in  this  country; 

Resolved,  That  we  especially  condemn  the  bill  which  was  reported  to  the 
last  House  of  Representatives  as  one  which  can  do  nothing  but  introduce 
confusion  where  we  now  have  uniformity. 


RESOLUTIONS   OF  THE   MASTER  CAR  BUILDERS'   ASSOCIATION. 

Whereas,  A  bill  for  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  in  the  departments 
of  the  Federal  Government  has  been  reported  favorably  to  the  House  of 
Representatives ; 

Whereas,  We  consider  that  the  only  effect  of  such  a  law  will  be  the  creation 
of  a  government  metric  system  and  the  continuation  of  the  existing  system 
in  ordinary  commerce  and  industry; 


230  APPENDIX. 

Whereas,  It  is  evident  that  the  confusion  resulting  from  such  a  condition 
of  things  would  be  intolerable; 

Whereas,  We  believe  a  change  in  the  system  of  weights  and  measures 
used  by  the  people  at  large  to  be  impossible;  therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  By  the  Master  Car  Builders'  Association,  in  convention  assem- 
bled, that  we  condemn  all  legislation  intended  to  promote  the  adoption  of 
the  metric  system  in  this  country; 

Resolved,  That  we  especially  condemn  the  bill  which  was  reported  to  the 
last  House  of  Representatives  as  one  which  can  do  nothing  but  introduce 
confusion  where  we  now  have  uniformity. 


RESOLUTIONS    OF    THE    FURNITURE    ASSOCIATION    OF    AMERICA. 

Whereas,  A  bill  for  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  in  the  departments 
of  the  Federal  Government  has  been  reported  to  Congress  with  recommenda- 
tion to  passage; 

Whereas,  Such  a  bill  can  have  but  one  of  two  results — the  creation  of  a 
special  system  of  government  weights  and  measures  on  the  one  hand,  or  a 
change  in  the  system  used  in  the  commerce  and  industries  of  the  country  on 
the  other; 

Whereas,  A  special  government  system  of  weights  and  measures  would  be 
as  absurd  as  a  special  government  system  of  currency,  and, 

Whereas,  A  change  in  the  weights  and  measures  used  by  the  people  at 
large,  can  only  be  accomplished  at  great  cost,  after  generations  of  con- 
fusion and  with  no  adequate  compensating  advantages,  therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  By  the  Furniture  Association  of  America  in  convention  assem- 
bled, that  we  condemn  this  bill  as  wholly  mischievous  in  its  tendencies. 

Resolved,  That  we  condemn  all  legislation  intended  to  bring  about  a  radical 
change  in  our  system  of  weights  and  measures. 


RESULT  OF  A  BALLOT  BY  MAIL  TAKEN  BY  THE  NATIONAL  METAL 
TRADES'  ASSOCIATION. 


In  favor  of  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  of  weights  and  measures 

as  the  legal  standard  of  the  United  States 22 

Against  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  of  weights  and  measures  as 

the  legal  standard  in  the  United  States 128 

In  favor  of  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  in  the  departments  of 

the  Federal  Government 22 

Against  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  in  the  departments  of  the 

Federal  Government  128 

In  favor  of  legislation  which  would  promote  the  adoption  of  the  metric 

system  22 

Against  any  legislation  which  would  promote  the  adoption  of  the  metric 

system     128 


APPENDIX.  231 

RESOLUTIONS    BY    THE    PROVIDENCE    ASSOCIATION    OF    MEGHAN 

ICAL    ENGINEERS. 

Whereas,  Renewed  attempts  are  being  made  to  bring  about  the  adoption 
of  the  metric  system  of  weights  and  measures  through  its  enforced  use  in 
the  departments  of  the  Federal  Government; 

Whereas,  We  regard  a  change  in  the  system  of  weights  and  measures  used 
by  the  people  at  large  to  be  practically  impossible,  thus  making  a  change  by 
the  government  alone,  uncalled  for,  therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  By  the  Providence  Association  of  Mechanical  Engineers,  that  we 
condemn  this  law  as  one  that  will  introduce  further  diversity  and  confusion, 
especially  affecting  linear  measures; 

Resolved,  That  we  regard  the  proposed  legislative  action  affecting  our 
established  system  of  weights  and  measures  as  unwise. 

RESOLUTIONS     BY    THE     SOCIETY    OF    NAVAL    ARCHITECTS     AND 
MARINE    ENGINEERS. 

Whereas,  A  bill  for  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  in  the  departments 
of  the  Federal  Government  has  been  favorably  reported  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  : 

Whereas,  We  consider  that  the  only  effect  of  such  a  law  will  be  the  creation 
of  a  government  metric  system  and  the  continuation  of  the  existing  system 
in  ordinary  trade  and  industry; 

Whereas,  The  confusion  resulting  from  such  a  condition  of  things  would 
be  intolerable; 

Whereas,  We  believe  the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  of  weights  and 
measures  by  the  people  at  large  to  be  impracticable,  therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  By  the  Society  of  Naval  Architects  and  Marine  Engineers,  as- 
sembled in  annual  meeting,  that  we  condemn  all  legislation  intended  to  pro- 
mote the  adoption  of  the  metric  system  in  this  country; 

Resolved,  That  we  especially  condemn  the  bill  which  was  reported  to  the 
last  House  of  Representatives  as  one  which  can  do  nothing  but  introduce 
confusion  where  we  now  have  uniformity. 

RESULT  OF  A  BALLOT  BY  MAIL  TAKEN  BY  THE  AMERICAN   SO- 
CIETY OF  HEATING  AND  VENTILATING  ENGINEERS. 

In  favor   of   the   adoption   of   the   Metric    System    of   Weights   and 

Measures  as  the  legal  standard  in  the  United  States  .........  ...       34 

Against  the  adoption  of  the  Metric  System  of  Weights  and  Measures 

as  the  legal  standard  in  the  United  States  .....................       45 

In  favor  of  the  adoption  of  the  Metric  System  in  the  departments  of 

the  Federal  Government  ......................................       37 

Against  the  adoption  of  the  Metric  System  in  the  departments  of  the 

Federal  Government    .........................................        42 

In  favor  of  legislation  which  would  promote  the  adoption  of  the 

Metric  System  ................................................       41 

Against  any  legislation  which  would  promote  the  adoption  of  the 

Metric  System  ........................  .^-9-i-rT-r^^..   ..............        39 


OF  THE 

I    UNIVERSITY  I 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL    FINE    OF    25     CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


MAR  22  1933 


REC'D  I 

MAY  23 1§60 


EBr. 


1374 


./ 


3 8ft 0 


